"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
NO WONDER AMERICA HAS A HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS CRISIS!
Illegal Immigration Last Month Hit Highest Level in Over a Decade
2:35
Illegal immigration skyrocketed to the highest level in more than a decade for the month of November, as President Trump’s border wall remains unfunded by the Republican-controlled Congress.
Last month, illegal immigration at the United States-Mexico border soared to levels that the country has not seen since Fiscal Year 2014, when more than 51,500 illegal aliens tried to cross the border in April 2015.
In November 2018, there were close to 52,000 border crossings on the southern border, alone, marking the highest level of illegal immigration in the month of November since 2006.
The continuing rise of illegal immigration at the southern border indicates that Fiscal Year 2019 will see the biggest boom of illegal immigration in more than a decade, according to Princeton Researcher Steven Kopits.
In total, Kopits projects that there will be more than 600,000 border crossings next year — a level of illegal immigration that the country has not seen since Fiscal Year 2008, when total southwest border apprehensions exceeded 705,000.
This puts illegal immigration under Trump on track to double what border crossings were in Fiscal Year 2017, when about 310,000 illegal aliens attempted to cross into the U.S. from the southern border.
Spiraling illegal immigration to the country is set behind a backdrop of a White House and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, that have yet to convince House and Senate Republicans — who only have control of Congress for about a month — to fund Trump’s central campaign promise: A southern border wall.
At the same time of the rising illegal immigration totals, the U.S. is continuing to admit more than a million legal immigrants every year to take American jobs. The mass immigration scheme is a boon to real estate developers, who thrive on the booming populations in major cities, and employers who benefit from a flooded labor market with stagnant U.S. wages and displaced American workers.
The country’s mass immigration policy also has massive rewards for Democrats, who are set to import between seven to eight million new foreign-born voters solely from the process known as “chain migration,” and overall, an additional 15 million new foreign-born voters.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Poll: 6-in-7 GOP Voters Say Minorities Favored over White Americans
2:38
Midterm election polling analysis reveals deep divides between Democrat and Republican voters on the growing multicultural populations in the United States.
Polling analysis from the Pew Research Center reveals that the overwhelming majority of Republican voters in the recent midterm elections, 85 percent, say the U.S. today favors minorities over white Americans. Only 11 percent of GOP voters said white Americans are favored over minority groups.
On the opposite end of the political spectrum, 87 percent of Democrat voters in the midterm elections say white Americans are favored in the U.S. over minorities. Only 12 percent of Democrat voters say minorities are favored over white Americans today.
The poll is an indication, again, of a Republican Party that is increasingly made up of a white working- and middle-class majority that feel disenfranchised due to country’s mass immigration policy of importing more than a million legal immigrants a year, while at the same time, having their jobs outsourced to foreign countries through the globalization of the country’s economy.
Polling and the recent midterm elections show, yet again, little-to-no support for economic libertarianism with GOP voters overwhelmingly in support of President Donald Trump’s economic nationalism.
For example, while the New York Times has complained that states with a white American majority pose “an array of problems,” the process known as “chain migration” — whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. with them — has imported more than nine million foreign nationals since 2005.
As Breitbart News reported, if chain migration is not ended — as President Trump has demanded — the U.S. electorate will forever be changed, with between seven to eight million new foreign-born individuals being eligible to vote because of chain migration, and overall, an additional 15 million new foreign-born voters.
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.
Meanwhile, free trade with China has eliminated or outsourced about 3.5 million American jobs since 2001. Polling this year found that a majority of GOP voters say free trade has hurt the U.S. and cost Americans their jobs.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
Gallup: More Than 750 Million People Globally Now Wanting to Migrate
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/12/10/gallup-750-million-wanting-migrate/
2:54
The Gallup World Poll survey, which interviewed 453,122 adults in 152 countries between 2015 and 2017, found that 15 per cent of the world’s adult population would like to move to another country if they had the chance.
Noting this proportion had risen from 13 per cent between 2010 and 2012, and 14 per cent between 2013 and 2016, the pollster commented that rising populism and a backlash to mass immigration seen in many Western electorates has apparently not deterred would-be migrants from wanting to seek a better standard of living elsewhere.
Regionally, the desire to migrate was found to be highest in sub-Saharan Africa, where 33 per cent of adults wanted to migrate permanently, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean (27 per cent), European nations outside of the EU (26 per cent), and the Middle East and North Africa (24 per cent).
Gallup found there were 13 countries in which half or more of the adult population said they wanted to migrate to another country, with Sierra Leone (71 per cent) topping the list for its proportion of would-be migrants, followed by Liberia (66 per cent) and Haiti (63 per cent).
The U.S. remains by far the most popular country for people wanting to move abroad, with 21 per cent of potential migrants selecting it as their top destination, with Canada, Germany, France, Australia, and the UK each also ranking highly.
Politicians from around the world gathered in Marrakesh, Morocco, on Monday to sign their countries up to a UN accord declaring mass immigration to be “inevitable, desirable and necessary”; however a large number of nations including the U.S., Australia, Chile, Israel, and several EU countries withdrew from the agreement over concerns about national sovereignty.
Earlier this year, Breitbart London reported on data from the Pew Research Center which revealed that up to two-thirds of the 1.1 billion population — a number set to more than double by 2050 — of sub-Saharan Africa were wanting to migrate to Europe or the U.S., millions of whom were planning on making the journey within the next five years.
Analysts such as NumbersUSA president Roy Beck have long pointed out that mass migration into Western countries can never resolve the challenges faced by poor countries, especially as populations in the third world increase.
MEXICANS ARE THE CULTURE
OF THIEVERY. THEY NOT ONLY STEAL MILLIONS OF JOBS WITH STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY,
THEY STEAL ANYTHING THEY CAN GET THEIR HANDS ON.
"Mexicans cheat, distribute drugs,
lie, forge documents, STEAL and kill a s if it’s a normal way of life. For
them, it is. Mexico’s civilization stands diametrically opposed to America’s
culture.: FROSTY WOOLDRIDGE
One of the most serious of those
crimes involves the theft of the identities of millions of United States
citizens and lawfully-admitted immigrants whose citizenship, lawful immigrant
status and good names are valued commodities that provide millions of illegal
aliens with a sort of “camouflage.” MICHAEL CUTLER
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
It needs U.S. support for its war on cartels. Instead of
insulting American citizens, Mexico should confront directly the reasons why
its people are so desperate to leave, and do all in its power to destroy the
cartels that are slowly killing the nation. That includes defunding the
murderous gangs by halting illegal immigration.
“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. By Paul Bedard
Washington Examiner
Washington Examiner
Who ultimately really
pays for all the true cost of all that "cheap" labor?
THE DEVASTATING COST
OF MEXICO’S WELFARE STATE IN AMERICA’S OPEN BORDERS
“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
BILLIONAIRES FOR wider OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES
DEPRESSED and AMERICA FLOODED WITH FOREIGNERS.
But
Benioff’s cheap-labor importation plan would also shrink the income and careers
sought by millions of American college graduates, many of whom will vote in
2020 for or against Trump.
The nation’s workforce now includes roughly 1.5
million foreign college-graduate contract-workers who are imported via the
H-1B, L-1, OPT, O-1, J-1, and other visa programs. These outsourcing workers
are not immigrants, but instead, they are contract workers hired for one to six
years, at lower wages, to take jobs that would otherwise go to American
graduates.
The Americans’ salary loss, however,
would be a gain for the CEOs who see their profits rise and their
stock options spike as middle-class salaries decline.
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.
Study: More than 7-in-10 California Immigrant
Welfare
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.
NON-CITIZEN
HOUSEHOLDS ALMOST
TWICE 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
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.
Migrant Family Border Apprehensions Skyrocket 270 Percent in Nov. over Prior Year
4:29
The apprehension of migrant families along the U.S. border with Mexico skyrocketed in November when compared to the previous year. Federal officials reported a 270 percent increase from November 2017 to this year.
Border Patrol agents apprehended 25,172 Family Unit Aliens (FMUA) along the U.S.-Mexico border in November, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Southwest Border Migration Report released this week. This compared to November 2017’s report of 7,016 FMUA apprehensions — an increase of nearly 270 percent.
The current November apprehensions report also represents an increase of 60 percent over November 2016’s (the month of President Donald Trump’s election.
“The November 2018 border numbers are the predictable result of a broken immigration system – including flawed judicial rulings – that usurps the will of the American people who have repeatedly demanded secure borders,” DHS Spokeswoman Katie Waldman said in a written statement on Thursday. “To address the obvious crisis at our border, the President has recently deployed the military and signed a new measure that, in conjunction with a joint DOJ regulation, makes illegal border crossers ineligible for asylum.”
During the first two months of Fiscal Year 2019, Border Patrol agents apprehended a total of 42,287 migrant families — an increase of 307 over the same period in FY2018.
Agents in the El Paso Sector saw the largest percentage increase in the apprehension of family units in the past year. The numbers jumped from 591 in November 2017 to 11,617 for the first two months of this fiscal year. The Rio Grande Valley Sector continues to lead the nation with 23,012 FMUA apprehensions in October and November. Only the Big Bend Sector witnessed a decrease in family apprehensions.
Following is the breakdown of apprehensions of Family Unit Aliens by Border Patrol Sector for the first two months of this fiscal year as reported by CBP:
Sector FY18TD FY19TD % Change
FY18TD to FY19TDBig Bend 229 48 -79% Del Rio 313 1,379 341% El Centro 439 1,696 286% El Paso 591 11,617 1,866% Laredo 87 170 95% Rio Grande 7,280 23,012 216% San Diego 378 2,649 601% Tucson 539 1,922 257% Yuma 1,996 5,794 190% USBP Southwest Border Total 11,852 48,287 307%
Migrants continue to exploit the loophole created by Congress in 2008 that prohibits expedited removal of minors without a hearing. Since that time, hundreds of thousands of migrants have flocked to the U.S. border to take advantage of what has become a magnet for illegal immigrants.
“We continue to call on Congress to address the crisis at the border by closing legal loopholes that drive illegal immigration,” Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Press Secretary Tyler Q. Houlton said in a July 2018 statement obtained by Breitbart News.
Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for Breitbart Border/Cartel Chronicles. He is a founding member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX and Facebook.
Americans,
Learn From The Yellow Jackets: Stop Running And Start Fighting Back
Americans,
Learn From The Yellow Jackets: Stop Running And Start Fighting Back
Americans,
Learn From The Yellow Jackets: Stop Running And Start Fighting Back
In
France, the Yellow Jackets (or “Gilets Jaunes” in French) have rushed into the
streets in massive numbers. They are not protesting cuts
in the generous entitlements. They are not throwing fits because they fear losing one-month
paid vacations. The fight is
about the increased fuel taxes—exorbitant taxes on top of the already high cost
of fuel.
But it’s more. The Macron government, an aloof, elitism regime, is pushing
a globalist, pro-EU agenda, one which is crippling the quality of life for
working Frenchmen, especially in rural areas and small towns. Mass
migration, bureaucratic wrangling, massive crime and unemployment with minimal
police presence are raving the country. Sadly,
this is history repeating itself as farce. Like now, Western and Northern France rebelled during
the French Revolution. The bloodthirsty Jacobins, lead by cat-like Robespierre, seized power from the French King, but their so-called
reforms in the name of social
justice ended up hurting the very working people they
claimed to care about.
The
unrest is also targeting the inflexible, unaccountable EU
bureaucracy. Belgian Yellow Jackets are protesting the
main offices in Maastricht and Brussels. Europeans have started to realize that
the federalization of the continent is not working out as they had hoped. A
common currency, a common market has turned into communistic micromanaging. The economically stronger
countries are expected to carry the costs of the fiscally weaker nations. The central planners want open borders,
cheap labor, and the resolute silencing of any disagreement to their plans. A federalized Europe is not working out. A
Frenchman cannot run to Portugal, Spain, or Italy to escape the moral and
fiscal ruin of his home country. French voters have no choice but to fight back
for their rights and dignity in their home countries.
France’s Yellow Jacket revolt is
spreading into the Netherlands as well. The Dutchmen are just as animated, but
less violent, expressing pent-up outrage over similar issues: excessive taxes,
open borders, but also a stifling culture of political correctness. This subtle
anti-free speech tyranny has inhibited a healthy exploration of difficult
issues, but has hindered public safety. Islamic militants among the teeming
masses of refugees are overwhelming Europe, undermining the tenuous social
fabric of the Western World and bringing rampant acts of terrorism in their
wake. Islamic preachers call publicly for full-on conquest Europe, the
imposition of Sharia law, and with it the casting out of freedom, the
democratic process, and civil rights for all. However, law-abiding citizens face criminal penalties for criticizing
Islam, Allah, or for calling out the violent tendencies advocated for in the
Koran. This injustice cannot stand any longer, so the people are taking to the
streets.
Even in Canada, a small yet growing
contingent of Yellow Jacket protests are gathering in different urban centers,
including Calgary, Alberta and Ottawa, Ontario: the federal seat of the national
government. They are protesting Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon
tax scheme. They are also rising up against Trudeau’s lax defense and border
control policies. Seven conservative provincial premiers are pushing back against the federal
government’s insistence on taking in large numbers of Middle Eastern refugees,
but refusing to pick up the costs for this program.
Throughout the Western World, people
are clamoring for the freedom
to speak out against Islam, against
the aggressive secular agenda invading their schools and the government. In
general, they are forcefully denouncing the rogue
cult of progressivism. As
the taxes and dead bodies pile up, as the degradation of the public
square becomes more prominent, the citizens are pushing back.
Contrast these European uprisings
with the United States. Instead
of fighting big statism, Americans are fleeing their home state in droves. Californians are in mass exodus, including members of
my own family. If they don’t like
the blue state bureaucracy, American citizens enjoy the luxury of moving to
a red state. And yet, this intra-migration process is hitting a brick wall. Some reliably red states have been trending blue
over the last ten years. After
Election 2018, progressives
are targeting more of them.
One contact from New Mexico just witnessed this Democratic
resurgence. The lone Republican Congressman, Steve Pearce, lost his bid for governor, and his seat
flipped blue (likely due to voter fraud, but no one’s fighting it). “I am planning on moving out of here,” she
told me. But I had to ask: “Where do you plan to go?” Arizona suffered some Democratic wins.
Wisconsin and Michigan will have Democrats installed
in statewide offices next
year. Republicans
still control those state legislatures for now, but for how much longer? Even ruby-red Kansas just
elected a Democratic Governor. Another
friend (who had relocated to the Sunflower State) expressed
shock and disdain, even though he enjoys the much lower cost of living. “Kansas
City is getting more liberal now. The cancer is spreading everywhere!” Yesterday, a Townhall columnist wrote a steadied piece on the full-on Democratic
takeover of Virginia in
the last decade, too. I visited there last
year—it felt like Los Angeles, only worse. Americans
are finding that there are fewer places where they can flee from state’s
oppressive governments.
Americans better learn
the lesson and follow the
example of their Yellow Jacket peers: assert
your rights in your home states. Running to Texas is not the final answer. Texas
is combatting a blue undercurrent already.
The seduction of socialism, which gives way to the specter of communism, has
possessed the minds of college students there as well as in California, Oregon,
and Washington State. Don’t flee, fight back, Americans. It’s time to Make
America Great Again, not just find a redder state to retire in.
The
Founding Fathers didn’t pull up stakes and flee west of the Appalachian
Mountains when the British Empire exacted higher taxes while denying the
American colonists’ equal representation in parliament. If American citizens don’t like what they see
happening at the local level or the state level in their home states, they need
to start fighting back, because there are fewer places to run to.
Americans,
Learn From The Yellow Jackets: Stop Running And Start Fighting Back
In
France, the Yellow Jackets (or “Gilets Jaunes” in French) have rushed into the
streets in massive numbers. They are not protesting cuts
in the generous entitlements. They are not throwing fits because they fear losing one-month
paid vacations. The fight is
about the increased fuel taxes—exorbitant taxes on top of the already high cost
of fuel.
But it’s more. The Macron government, an aloof, elitism regime, is pushing
a globalist, pro-EU agenda, one which is crippling the quality of life for
working Frenchmen, especially in rural areas and small towns. Mass
migration, bureaucratic wrangling, massive crime and unemployment with minimal
police presence are raving the country. Sadly,
this is history repeating itself as farce. Like now, Western and Northern France rebelled during
the French Revolution. The bloodthirsty Jacobins, lead by cat-like Robespierre, seized power from the French King, but their so-called
reforms in the name of social
justice ended up hurting the very working people they
claimed to care about.
The
unrest is also targeting the inflexible, unaccountable EU
bureaucracy. Belgian Yellow Jackets are protesting the
main offices in Maastricht and Brussels. Europeans have started to realize that
the federalization of the continent is not working out as they had hoped. A
common currency, a common market has turned into communistic micromanaging. The economically stronger
countries are expected to carry the costs of the fiscally weaker nations. The central planners want open borders,
cheap labor, and the resolute silencing of any disagreement to their plans. A federalized Europe is not working out. A
Frenchman cannot run to Portugal, Spain, or Italy to escape the moral and
fiscal ruin of his home country. French voters have no choice but to fight back
for their rights and dignity in their home countries.
France’s Yellow Jacket revolt is
spreading into the Netherlands as well. The Dutchmen are just as animated, but
less violent, expressing pent-up outrage over similar issues: excessive taxes,
open borders, but also a stifling culture of political correctness. This subtle
anti-free speech tyranny has inhibited a healthy exploration of difficult
issues, but has hindered public safety. Islamic militants among the teeming
masses of refugees are overwhelming Europe, undermining the tenuous social
fabric of the Western World and bringing rampant acts of terrorism in their
wake. Islamic preachers call publicly for full-on conquest Europe, the
imposition of Sharia law, and with it the casting out of freedom, the
democratic process, and civil rights for all. However, law-abiding citizens face criminal penalties for criticizing
Islam, Allah, or for calling out the violent tendencies advocated for in the
Koran. This injustice cannot stand any longer, so the people are taking to the
streets.
Even in Canada, a small yet growing
contingent of Yellow Jacket protests are gathering in different urban centers,
including Calgary, Alberta and Ottawa, Ontario: the federal seat of the national
government. They are protesting Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon
tax scheme. They are also rising up against Trudeau’s lax defense and border
control policies. Seven conservative provincial premiers are pushing back against the federal
government’s insistence on taking in large numbers of Middle Eastern refugees,
but refusing to pick up the costs for this program.
Throughout the Western World, people
are clamoring for the freedom
to speak out against Islam, against
the aggressive secular agenda invading their schools and the government. In
general, they are forcefully denouncing the rogue
cult of progressivism. As
the taxes and dead bodies pile up, as the degradation of the public
square becomes more prominent, the citizens are pushing back.
Contrast these European uprisings
with the United States. Instead
of fighting big statism, Americans are fleeing their home state in droves. Californians are in mass exodus, including members of
my own family. If they don’t like
the blue state bureaucracy, American citizens enjoy the luxury of moving to
a red state. And yet, this intra-migration process is hitting a brick wall. Some reliably red states have been trending blue
over the last ten years. After
Election 2018, progressives
are targeting more of them.
One contact from New Mexico just witnessed this Democratic
resurgence. The lone Republican Congressman, Steve Pearce, lost his bid for governor, and his seat
flipped blue (likely due to voter fraud, but no one’s fighting it). “I am planning on moving out of here,” she
told me. But I had to ask: “Where do you plan to go?” Arizona suffered some Democratic wins.
Wisconsin and Michigan will have Democrats installed
in statewide offices next
year. Republicans
still control those state legislatures for now, but for how much longer? Even ruby-red Kansas just
elected a Democratic Governor. Another
friend (who had relocated to the Sunflower State) expressed
shock and disdain, even though he enjoys the much lower cost of living. “Kansas
City is getting more liberal now. The cancer is spreading everywhere!” Yesterday, a Townhall columnist wrote a steadied piece on the full-on Democratic
takeover of Virginia in
the last decade, too. I visited there last
year—it felt like Los Angeles, only worse. Americans
are finding that there are fewer places where they can flee from state’s
oppressive governments.
Americans better learn
the lesson and follow the
example of their Yellow Jacket peers: assert
your rights in your home states. Running to Texas is not the final answer. Texas
is combatting a blue undercurrent already.
The seduction of socialism, which gives way to the specter of communism, has
possessed the minds of college students there as well as in California, Oregon,
and Washington State. Don’t flee, fight back, Americans. It’s time to Make
America Great Again, not just find a redder state to retire in.
The
Founding Fathers didn’t pull up stakes and flee west of the Appalachian
Mountains when the British Empire exacted higher taxes while denying the
American colonists’ equal representation in parliament. If American citizens don’t like what they see
happening at the local level or the state level in their home states, they need
to start fighting back, because there are fewer places to run to.
No comments:
Post a Comment