Monday, June 17, 2019

PETE BUTTIGIEG - WE MUST SUPPORT OUR BILLIONAIRE PAYMASTERS WITH ENDLESS HORDES OF HEAVY BREEDING MEXICANS JUMPING OUR BORDERS, JOBS AND VOTING BOOTHS

BUTTIGIEG IS AN ADVOCATE FOR TOTAL AMNESTY AND WIDER OPEN BORDERS. HE HAS NO WORD TO GIVE VICTIMS OF MEXICAN CRIMES OR THE STAGGERING COST OF THE MEXICAN WELFARE STATE THEY HAVE BUILT ON AMERICA'S BACK!


Media Hide Subsidies for Alien Grads in OPT Articles


Washington, D.C. (June 18, 2019) -  The 
Center for Immigration Studies finds that 
two big newspapers, the New York 
Times and the San Jose Mercury, recently 
published articles on the controversial 
Optional Practical Training (OPT) program 
for foreign grads of U.S. universities 
without mentioning the truth about the 
program — America's elderly and sick in 
effect pay $2 billion a year to employers 
who hire alien grads through OPT rather 
than American ones.

View the full post: https://cis.org/North/New-York-Times-San-Jose-MercuryNews-Hide-Subsidies-Alien-Grads-OPT-Articles

David North, fellow at the Center and the author of the piece, said, "Neither article mentioned the approximately 8 percent tax break that employers of foreign grads, but not of American grads, get under OPT. The program's dirty little secret is that it is subsidizing employers who choose to hire alien grads rather than American ones."

The New York Times article on Monday dealt with a slowdown within the Department of Homeland Security in the issuance of work permits for the foreign alumni bore this awkward headline: "Visa Delays at Backlogged Immigration Service Strand International Students".

The Times article focused on the new delays in the issuance of work permits for these jobs, which, indirectly, caused the loss of some of those jobs, and on an interesting set of "victims", all of whom are former or current students at Ivy League universities. This gives a lopsided view of the program that routinely provides subsidized jobs to more than 200,000 alumni of less highly regarded institutions.

For instance, one would not know from reading any of the rare media coverage of this program that OPT alumni have been hired, in subsidized jobs, as construction laborers.

Meanwhile, The San Jose Mercury News reported on an important event in the migration business -  Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) will soon be introducing a bill terminating the OPT program; he has also written to the president urging him to end the program (which has no legislative basis) by issuing an executive order.

Gosar is aware of the subsidies in the program, and is opposed to them. The first report on his legislative proposal came from Bloomberg News, which also noted the subsidy element in OPT, but the Mercury-News account failed to mention the tax break.

That these trust funds are, in effect, sending money to employers who would rather hire alien graduates than American ones, remains, for all practical purposes, a dirty little secret.

THIS IS FOR REAL! 

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

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




Pete Buttigieg Rakes in $7 
Million in April





SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - JUNE 01: Democratic presidential candidate South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg speaks during the California Democrats 2019 State Convention at the Moscone Center on June 01, 2019 in San Francisco, California. Several Democratic presidential candidates are speaking at the California Democratic Convention that runs through Sunday. …
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
JOSHUA CAPLAN
 332
2:16

2020 White House contender and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) raked in campaign funds totaling $7 million in April alone, according to a report.

Politico reported Monday that Buttigieg campaign officials revealed the staggering fundraising numbers in a conference call with donors in April. The development comes amid reports that the 37-year-old Indiana Democrat is strengthening fundraising efforts and expected to more than double his first-quarter raise — $7 million — with an estimated $15 million haul. Campaigns have until June 30th to accept funds counted towards their second-quarter totals and until July 15th to file reports with Federal Election Commission (FEC).
“If you want to show you’re growing, if you want to show you’ve got any shot at this, then you need to be growing,” Julianna Smoot, former President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign finance director, told Politico. “And he’s clearly showing signs that he’s expanding.”
Though Buttigieg is now considered a top-tier presidential candidate, the field’s top two contenders, former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), topped him by a considerable spread in Q1 fundraising.
Sanders, who announced his campaign in February, raked in nearly $18.2 million in the first quarter of 2019, while Biden, who did not announce his candidacy until late April and did not have to file a first-quarter fundraising report, raised $6.3 million in the first 24 hours of his campaign.
Still, both Biden and Sanders began their campaigns with significantly higher national profiles than Buttigieg, who has never before sought federal elected office.
A Fox News poll published Sunday shows Buttigieg and Sen. Kamala Harries tied for fourth place with 8 percent among primary voters. Biden topped the survey with 32 percent, while Sanders (13 percent) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (9 percent) placed second and third place, respectively.
The AFP contributed to this report. 


Immigration Funds Bigger Government, Says 2020 Democrat Buttigieg




NEIL MUNRO
  22 Apr 201971
7:51

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

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



Weird but true: GOP and Dems in Congress are offering fast-track green cards to encourage 300,000+ vr. low wage Indian workers to take jobs from middle class American voters & graduates. FWIW I don't think the pols & staffers recognize what they are doing http://bit.ly/2EErxCO 




GOP Senators Push Green Card Reward for Indian Visa Workers





The Indian outsourcing bill is H.R. 1044 and S. 386.
Each year, roughly four million young Americans join the workforce after graduating from high school or university.
But the federal government then imports about 1.1 million legal immigrants, refreshes a resident population of roughly 1.5 million white-collar guest workers, in addition to approximately 500,000 blue-collar visa workers, and also tolerates about eight million illegal workers and the inflow of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants.
This federal policy of flooding the market with cheap white-collar graduates and blue-collar foreign labor is intended to boost economic growth for investors.
This policy works by shifting enormous wealth from young employees towards older investors, even as it also widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts children’s schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.



Democrat leader on Wall St asks CEOs to work with unions to raise wages, so preserving "workers’ confidence in the economic system." But Rubin opposes immigration reform to raise wages via a tight labor market. That's bad for Wall Street (and the party). http://bit.ly/2oNVt73 


3


Wall Street Leader Wants CEOs to Save 'Economic System' by Raising Wages | Breitbart






THEY ALL END UP HISPANDERING, DON'T THEY?


Millions of illiterate Mexican flag wavers will not make this country great again! We can see what it did to Mexico.

The true cost for all that "cheap" labor will be passed along to what is left of the American middle-class.



Pete Buttigieg: America Not Full, Send More Immigrants to South Bend




AP/Getty Images
CHARLIE SPIERING
 17 Apr 2019173
1:53

South Bend Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg campaigned on Wednesday for more illegal immigrants in the United States with deferred deportation to come to his city.

The mayor held a campaign event with the Asian and Latino Coalition in Des Moines, Iowa to discuss issues important to Democrats.
One woman present asked Buttigieg whether the United States should protect the legal status of DACA recipients and other illegals with deferred deportation and temporary protected status.
“We need people here. We need to grow. My community — if we got responsible able-bodied people on a path to citizenship, send them to South Bend, because we’re trying to grow our community,” Buttigieg replied. “Job growth and population growth go hand in hand.”
The woman cited people she spoke with who were concerned about the growth in illegal immigration because they would take jobs away from legal American workers.
Buttigieg alluded to President Donald Trump’s assertion that the country was “full” and could not accept more illegals into the country.
“If somebody thinks America’s full, I can tell you that my community in Indiana isn’t full,” Buttigieg said. “We were built for 130,000 people and we only have a 100,000 now.”
Buttigieg criticized the president’s political strategy of trying to divide Americans instead of trying to lead to a process to legalize more immigrants.
He proposed extending amnesty and TPS status for Dreamers and other illegals in the country, as well as reforms for legal immigration and border security.
“We can’t expect that process to work if we aren’t willing to fix it,” he said.
He said he would welcome 30,000 more workers for taxpayers in South Bend, before commenting on the issue in Spanish.





There Is No ‘Labor Shortage’


Washington, D.C. (April 17, 2019) - A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies finds no empirical evidence of a "labor shortage" whereby employers need immigration  to fill jobs because they are unable to find American workers.

Jason Richwine, an independent policy analyst and the author of the report, said, "When employers tell us that they cannot find workers, what they really mean is that they cannot find workers willing to work for the low wage they'd like to pay. The percentage of working-age Americans not in the labor force remains significantly below the level from the year 2000, and employers should try to bring those Americans back first before they look to immigration."


Key findings in the report:
  • Shortages should not occur in a free market
  • Tight labor markets benefit marginalized groups
  • Wages have been stagnant over the long term
  • Labor force participation is down over the long term
  • Domestic industries should hire Americans
  • Natives participate in all major occupations
  • Plenty of STEM workers are available
  • Gains to the economy are not the same as gains to natives
  • Immigration is not an efficient solution to population aging

Immigration is fundamentally about trade-offs. Unfortunately, advocates have seized on the idea of a "labor shortage" in order to deny those trade-offs, arguing instead that immigration is necessary to fill jobs that cannot be filled by natives. Neither economic theory nor empirical evidence supports the notion of a "labor shortage". It's time to retire this talking point.



Feds: 12M Americans Remain Sidelined, Out of the Workforce



JOHN BINDER
  15 Apr 2019326
3:22

More than 12 million Americans have remain sidelined from the U.S. workforce despite their wanting full-time employment, federal data suggests.

Last month, there were more than 12 million Americans who were either unemployed, forced to work part-time jobs, out of the workforce but wanted jobs, or who were unemployed because they were discouraged by their job prospects.
Overall, about 6.2 million Americans were unemployed, about 13 percent of whom were teenagers and 6.7 percent of whom were black Americans. The unemployment rate for black Americans is more than double the unemployment rate of Asian Americans.
Additionally, about 4.5 million Americans are working part-time jobs despite wanting full-time jobs. These are mostly poor, working and lower-middle class Americans who say the job market has kept them in part-time work though they prefer being a full-time employee.
There are also about 1.4 million Americans who are entirely out of the workforce and thus not counted in the unemployment rate. These are working-age residents who have looked for a job over the last 12 months. Among those out of the workforce are 412,000 Americans who are discouraged by the job market and say they do not believe there are any jobs for them in the current economy.
While millions remain on the sidelines of the workforce, Democrats, some Republicans, and the big business lobby have suggested the U.S. bring more foreign workers to take blue collar and many white collar American jobs. Already, about 1.5 million illegal and legal immigrants are admitted to the country every year, at the detriment of U.S. wages.
Every one percent increase in the immigrant composition of American workers’ occupations reduces their weekly wages by about 0.5 percent, researcher Steven Camarotta has found. This means the average native-born American worker today has his weekly wages reduced by perhaps 8.5 percent because of current legal immigration levels.
In a state like Florida, where immigrants make up about 25.4 percent of the labor force, American workers have their weekly wages reduced by about 12.5 percent. In California, where immigrants make up 34 percent of the labor force, American workers’ weekly wages are reduced by potentially 17 percent.
Likewise, every one percent increase in the immigrant composition of low-skilled U.S. occupations reduces wages by about 0.8 percent. Should 15 percent of low-skilled jobs be held by foreign-born workers, it would reduce the wages of native-born American workers by perhaps 12 percent.
Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR), David Perdue (R-GA), and Josh Hawley (R-MO), on the other hand, have reintroduced the RAISE Act which would reduce legal immigration levels to about 500,000 admissions a year and end the process known as “chain migration,” where newly naturalized citizens are able to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S.
The plan would immediately tighten the labor market, advocates say, and thus boost wages and open job opportunities for America’s working and middle class that have struggled to re-enter the workforce.
The Washington, DC-imposed mass legal immigration policy is a boon to corporate executives, Wall Street, big business, and multinational conglomerates, as America’s working and middle class have their wealth redistributed to the country’s top earners through wage stagnation and increased public costs.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

Study: Nearly 1M Migrant Children Could Enter U.S. Before 2020 Election



Spencer Platt/Getty Images
JOHN BINDER
  17 Apr 20190
2:57

Nearly one million migrant children could enter the United States, either unaccompanied or with their border crossing parents, before the 2020 election if projected rates of illegal immigration pan out, new research finds.

Current illegal immigration projections by Princeton Policy Advisors researcher Steven Kopits predicts that there could be about 1.28 million border apprehensions this calendar year — a rate of illegal immigration that would exceed every fiscal year of former Presidents George W. Bush and Obama.
Kopits’ finds that up to 300,000 migrant children could enter the country by the time school begins in September for most students under a scenario where illegal immigration continues at projected rates throughout the next year and a half.
Assuming 80 percent of these migrant children enroll in school, the U.S. could be faced with absorbing 240,000 new migrant school students across the country –and specifically states like California, New York, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and New Jersey — this coming school year, alone.
For the 2019 to 2020 school year, for instance, California would be forced to absorb about 50,000 new migrant students. Likewise, Texas would see an influx of about 36,000 migrant students.
Fast forward to the beginning of the next school year, September 2020 to June 2021, and the U.S. could have nearly a million new migrant children in the country before the 2020 presidential election, about 800,000 of which could enroll in school systems, under the mass migration scenario.
(Princeton Policy Advisors)
“Should the situation not be resolved and asylum seeking continue at the pace we anticipate for the coming year, by September 2020, nearly 1,000,000 asylum children could be in the US (arriving Jan. 2019 – Aug. 2020),” Kopits writes.
This translates to California’s public school system having to take about 168,000 new migrant students at the beginning of next year’s school year while Florida would see an influx of about 59,000 and for New Jersey, an influx of about 36,000. Texas would see an influx of about 120,000 new migrant students.
Skyrocketing illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border has not only strained public resources but could choke 4 percent wage hikes that President Trump has delivered to America’s blue collar and working class.
Experts like former Secretary of State Kris Kobach have warned that if illegal immigration levels continue to rise over this year and throughout 2020, those wage hikes will be depleted by a saturated labor market with more cheap, foreign workers competing against Americans.
Every year, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million illegal and legal immigrants, with more than 70 percent arriving through 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.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

California became a Democratic stronghold not because Californians became socialists, but because millions of socialists moved there.  Immigration turned California blue, 
and immigration is ultimately to blame for California's high poverty level.


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



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

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

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

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

63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs

Compared to 35% of native households









FacebookTwitterRedditLinkedInEmailCopy LinkPrint








By Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler on November 20, 2018

Steven A. Camarota is the director of research and Karen Zeigler is a demographer at the Center.

New "public charge" rules issued by the Trump administration expand the list of programs that are considered welfare, receipt of which may prevent a prospective immigrant from receiving lawful permanent residence (a green card). Analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) shows welfare use by households headed by non-citizens is very high. The desire to reduce these rates among future immigrants is the primary justification for the rule change. Immigrant advocacy groups are right to worry that the high welfare use of non-citizens may impact the ability of some to receive green cards, though the actual impacts of the rules are unclear because they do not include all the benefits non-citizens receive on behalf of their children and many welfare programs are not included in the new rules. As welfare participation varies dramatically by education level, significantly reducing future welfare use rates would require public charge rules that take into consideration education levels and resulting income and likely welfare use.
Of non-citizens in Census Bureau data, roughly half are in the country illegally. Non-citizens also include long-term temporary visitors (e.g. guestworkers and foreign students) and permanent residents who have not naturalized (green card holders). Despite the fact that there are barriers designed to prevent welfare use for all of these non-citizen populations, the data shows that, overall, non-citizen households access the welfare system at high rates, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children.
Among the findings:
  • 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).
  • While most new legal immigrants (green card holders) are barred from most welfare programs, as are illegal immigrants and temporary visitors, these provisions have only a modest impact on non-citizen household use rates because: 1) most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify; 2) the bar does not apply to all programs, nor does it always apply to non-citizen children; 3) some states provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; and, most importantly, 4) 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 following figures include EITC:
  • No single program explains non-citizens' higher overall welfare use. For example, not counting school lunch and breakfast, welfare use is still 61 percent for non-citizen households compared to 33 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 55 percent for immigrants compared to 30 percent for natives.
  • Welfare use tends to be high for both newer arrivals and long-time residents. Of households headed by non-citizens in the United States for fewer than 10 years, 50 percent use one or more welfare programs; for those here more than 10 years, the rate is 70 percent.
  • Welfare receipt by working households is very common. Of non-citizen households receiving welfare, 93 percent have at least one worker, as do 76 percent of native households receiving welfare. In fact, non-citizen households are more likely overall to have a worker than are native households.1
  • The primary reason welfare use is so high among non-citizens is that a much larger share of non-citizens have modest levels of education and, as a result, they often earn low wages and qualify for welfare at higher rates than natives.
  • Of all non-citizen households, 58 percent are headed by immigrants who have no more than a high school education, compared to 36 percent of native households.
  • Of households headed by non-citizens with no more than a high school education, 81 percent access one or more welfare programs. In contrast, 28 percent of non-citizen households headed by a college graduate use one or more welfare programs.
  • Like non-citizens, welfare use also varies significantly for natives by educational attainment, with the least educated having much higher welfare use than the most educated.
  • Using education levels and likely future income to determine the probability of welfare use among new green card applicants — and denying permanent residency to those likely to utilize such programs — would almost certainly reduce welfare use among future permanent residents.
  • Of households headed by naturalized immigrants (U.S. citizens), 50 percent used one or more welfare programs. Naturalized-citizen households tend to have lower welfare use than non-citizen households for most types of programs, but higher use rates than native households for virtually every major program.
  • Welfare use is significantly higher for non-citizens than for natives in all four top immigrant-receiving states. In California, 72 percent of non-citizen-headed households use one or more welfare programs, compared to 35 percent for native-headed households. In Texas, the figures are 69 percent vs. 35 percent; in New York they are 53 percent vs. 38 percent; and in Florida, 56 percent of non-citizen-headed households use at least welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native households.

Methods

Programs Examined. The major welfare programs examined in this report are Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) food program, free or subsidized school lunch and breakfast, food stamps (officially called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), Medicaid, public housing, and rent subsidies.
Data Source. Data for this analysis comes from the public-use file of the 2014 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), which is the newest SIPP data available.2 The SIPP is a longitudinal dataset consisting of a series of "panels". Each panel is a nationally representative sample of U.S. households that is followed over several years. The survey was redesigned for 2013 with 2014 as the second wave of the new panel. We use the 2014 SIPP for this analysis. Like all Census surveys of this kind, welfare use is based on self-reporting in the SIPP, and as such there is some misreporting in the survey. All means and percentages are calculated using weights provided by the Census Bureau.
Why Use the SIPP? The SIPP is ideally suited for studying welfare programs because, unlike other Census surveys that measure welfare, the SIPP was specifically designed for this purpose. As the Census Bureau states on its website, the purpose of the SIPP is to "provide accurate and comprehensive information about the income and program participation of individuals and households."3 In addition to the SIPP, the only other government surveys that identify immigrants and at the same time measure welfare use for the entire population are the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement, often abbreviated as CPS ASEC or just ASEC. The ACS is a very large survey, but only asks about a few programs. The ASEC is released on a more timely basis than the SIPP and asks about more programs than the ACS, but it does not include the EITC; the ASEC also is not specifically designed to capture receipt of welfare programs. As we discuss at length in a prior study published in 2015, based on 2012 SIPP data, there is general agreement among researchers that the SIPP does a better job of capturing welfare use than other Census Bureau surveys, including the ASEC and ACS.4 More recent analysis confirms this conclusion.5
One recent improvement in the SIPP that was not available when we conducted our 2015 study is the inclusion of a question on use of the EITC, making for even more complete coverage of the nation's welfare programs. The EITC is by far the nation's largest cash program to low-income workers, paying out nearly $60 billion in 2014.6 Unfortunately for immigration research, the SIPP survey for 2014 no longer asks respondents about their current immigration status.7 As other researchers have pointed out, individuals in prior SIPPs who are non-citizens and report that they are currently not permanent residents are almost entirely illegal immigrants, with a modest number of long-term temporary visitors (e.g., guestworkers and foreign students) also included.8
As we showed in our 2015 analysis using the 2012 SIPP, 66 percent of households headed by non-citizens who do not have a green card, and who are mostly illegal immigrants, have very high welfare use rates — excluding the EITC.9 With the new 2014 SIPP, we can no longer identify likely illegal immigrants with the same ease. However, we do know that about half of non-citizens in Census Bureau data are illegal immigrants, which we would expect to make welfare use for non-citizens in general low, as those in the country without authorization are barred from almost all federal welfare programs.10 But like our prior analysis using the 2012 SIPP, this report shows that welfare use by households headed by illegal immigrants must be significant for the overall rate of welfare use among non-citizens to look as it does in this report.
Examining Welfare Use by Household. A large body of prior research has examined welfare use and the fiscal impact of immigrants by looking at households because it makes the most sense. The National Research Council did so in its fiscal estimates in 1997 because it argued that "the household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed."11 In their fiscal study of New Jersey, Deborah Garvey and Thomas Espenshade also used households as the unit of analysis because "households come closer to approximating a functioning socioeconomic unit of mutual exchange and support."12 Other analyses of welfare use and programs, including by the U.S. Census Bureau, have also used the household as the basis for studying welfare use.13 The late Julian Simon of the Cato Institute, himself a strong immigration advocate, pointed out that, "One important reason for not focusing on individuals is that it is on the basis of family needs that public welfare, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and similar transfers are received."14
The primary reason researchers have not looked at individuals is that, as Simon pointed out, eligibility for welfare programs is typically based on the income of all family or household members. Moreover, welfare benefits can often be consumed by all members of the household, such as food purchased with food stamps. Also, if the government provides food or health insurance to children, it creates a clear benefit to adult members of the household who will not have to spend money on these things. In addition, some of the welfare use variables in the SIPP are reported at the household level, not the individual level.
Some advocates for expansive immigration argue that household comparisons are unfair or biased against immigrants because someday the children who receive welfare may possibly pay back the costs of these programs in taxes as adults. Of course, the same argument could be made for the children of natives to whom immigrants are compared in this analysis. Moreover, excluding children obscures the fundamental issue that a very large share of immigrants are unable to support their own children and turn to taxpayer-funded means-tested programs. In terms of the policy debate over immigration and the implications for public coffers, this is the central concern.

End Notes

1 Of the 4,684,784 million non-citizen households receiving welfare, 93 percent or 4,370,385 have at least one worker. Among the 37,195,644 million native-headed households receiving welfare, 76 percent or 28,238,540 have at least one worker. Of the total (7,489,098) non-citizen households in the country, 92 percent or 6,923,931 have at least one worker. Of all native households (107,454,456), 76 percent or 81,928,626 have at least one worker.
2 The SIPP does not cover the institutionalized population. It does include a small number of people living in group quarters. By focusing on households we are excluding those in group quarters.
3 "Survey of Income and Program Participation", U.S. Census Bureau, last revised February 29, 2016.
4 A detailed discussion and summary of the research showing that the SIPP is the most accurate survey of welfare use can be found in the Methodology section under subsections "Why Use the SIPP" and "The Superiority of SIPP Data" in our 2015 report on immigrant welfare use: Steven A. Camarota, "Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households: An Analysis of Medicaid, Cash, Food, and Housing Programs", Center for Immigration Studies, September 2015.
5 A recent National Bureau of Economic Research report examining food stamps finds better coverage from the SIPP than any other survey. See Bruce D. Meyer, Nikolas Mittag, and Robert M. Goerge, "Errors in Survey Reporting and Imputation and their Effects on Estimates of Food Stamp Program Participation", NBER Working Paper No. 2514, October 2018. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has conducted an evaluation of the SIPP, which was redesigned in 2013. The academies find that in general the survey produces estimates similar to prior versions of the survey. See National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, The 2014 Redesign of the Survey of Income and Program Participation: An Assessment, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2018.
6 An additional $9.7 billion was received from the credit in the form of a refund to low-income taxpayers as EITC recipients do not pay federal income tax. The remaining roughly $60 billion received annually by recipients is not a refund of their income tax, but is simply a cash payment from the government. See Gene Falk and Margot L. Crandall-Hollick, "The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): An Overview", Congressional Research Service, April 18, 2018.
7 In earlier versions of the survey, respondents were first asked if they entered as a permanent resident and second if their status had changed. Now the survey only asks respondents if they entered as a permanent resident.
8 See James D. Bachmeier, Jennifer Van Hook, and Frank D. Bean, "Can We Measure Immigrants' Legal Status? Lessons from Two U.S. Surveys"International Migration Review, Summer 2014; Jeanne Batalova, Sarah Hooker, and Randy Capps, "DACA at the Two-Year Mark: A National and State Profile of Youth Eligible and Applying for Deferred Action", Migration Policy Institute, August 2014.
9 See Table 1 in Steven A. Camarota, "Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households: An Analysis of Medicaid, Cash, Food, and Housing Programs", Center for Immigration Studies, September 2015.
10 In its 2014 estimate of the illegal immigrant population, the most recent available, the government estimated that there were 12.1 million illegal immigrants in the country, about 11 million of whom were in the American Community Survey (ACS). See Table 2, in Bryan Baker, "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2014", DHS Office of Immigration Statistics, July 2017. The total number of non-citizens in the 2014 ACS, on which the DHS estimates are based, was 22.3 million. So about half of the non-citizens in the survey are illegal immigrants. The 2014 SIPP shows slightly fewer non-citizens (20 million) than the ACS. The primary reason the SIPP does not show as large a non-citizen population as the ACS is that the SIPP does not include those in institutions, as does the ACS. Also the non-citizen population grows slightly each year, and the first panel of the SIPP was in 2013, making for a slightly smaller non-citizen population in the 2014 SIPP. But overall it is still the case that roughly half the non-citizens in the SIPP used for this analysis are in the country illegally.
11 James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, eds., The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1997. See pp. 255-256.
12 Deborah Garvey and Thomas J. Espenshade, "State and Local Fiscal Impacts of New Jersey's Immigrant and Native Households", in Keys to Successful Immigration: Implications of the New Jersey Experience, Thomas J. Espenshade, ed., Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1997.
14 For this reason, Simon examined families, not individuals. While not exactly the same as households, as Simon also observed, the household "in most cases" is "identical with the family." See Julian L. Simon, "Immigrants, Taxes, and Welfare in the United States 1984", Population and Development Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, March, 1984, pp. 55-69.


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



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

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

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

THE INVASION THAT AMERICA INVITED
Simultaneously, illegal immigration next year is on track to soar to the highest level in a decade, with a potential 600,000 border crossers expected.
“More than 750 million people want to migrate to another country permanently, according to Gallup research published Monday, as 150 world leaders sign up to the controversial UN global compact which critics say makes migration a human right.”  VIRGINIA HALE

Census Confirms: 63 Percent of ‘Non-Citizens’ on Welfare, 4.6 Million Households 

By Paul Bedard 


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

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

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

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


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



 By David North |


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

Study: More than 7-in-10 California Immigrant

Welfare



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

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

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

NON-CITIZEN HOUSEHOLDS ALMOSTTWICE AS LIKELY TO BE ON WELFARE


December 3, 2018

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

ABOUT DANIEL GREENFIELD

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


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

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

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

BY ALYSIA E. GARRISON

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

It Pays to be Illegal in California

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

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



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


Immigration Funds Bigger Government, Says 2020 Democrat Buttigieg




NEIL MUNRO
  22 Apr 201971
7:51

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

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



Weird but true: GOP and Dems in Congress are offering fast-track green cards to encourage 300,000+ vr. low wage Indian workers to take jobs from middle class American voters & graduates. FWIW I don't think the pols & staffers recognize what they are doing http://bit.ly/2EErxCO 




GOP Senators Push Green Card Reward for Indian Visa Workers





The Indian outsourcing bill is H.R. 1044 and S. 386.
Each year, roughly four million young Americans join the workforce after graduating from high school or university.
But the federal government then imports about 1.1 million legal immigrants, refreshes a resident population of roughly 1.5 million white-collar guest workers, in addition to approximately 500,000 blue-collar visa workers, and also tolerates about eight million illegal workers and the inflow of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants.
This federal policy of flooding the market with cheap white-collar graduates and blue-collar foreign labor is intended to boost economic growth for investors.
This policy works by shifting enormous wealth from young employees towards older investors, even as it also widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts children’s schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.



Democrat leader on Wall St asks CEOs to work with unions to raise wages, so preserving "workers’ confidence in the economic system." But Rubin opposes immigration reform to raise wages via a tight labor market. That's bad for Wall Street (and the party). http://bit.ly/2oNVt73 


3


Wall Street Leader Wants CEOs to Save 'Economic System' by Raising Wages | Breitbart






THEY ALL END UP HISPANDERING, DON'T THEY?


Millions of illiterate Mexican flag wavers will not make this country great again! We can see what it did to Mexico.

The true cost for all that "cheap" labor will be passed along to what is left of the American middle-class.



Pete Buttigieg: America Not Full, Send More Immigrants to South Bend




AP/Getty Images
CHARLIE SPIERING
 17 Apr 2019173
1:53

South Bend Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg campaigned on Wednesday for more illegal immigrants in the United States with deferred deportation to come to his city.

The mayor held a campaign event with the Asian and Latino Coalition in Des Moines, Iowa to discuss issues important to Democrats.
One woman present asked Buttigieg whether the United States should protect the legal status of DACA recipients and other illegals with deferred deportation and temporary protected status.
“We need people here. We need to grow. My community — if we got responsible able-bodied people on a path to citizenship, send them to South Bend, because we’re trying to grow our community,” Buttigieg replied. “Job growth and population growth go hand in hand.”
The woman cited people she spoke with who were concerned about the growth in illegal immigration because they would take jobs away from legal American workers.
Buttigieg alluded to President Donald Trump’s assertion that the country was “full” and could not accept more illegals into the country.
“If somebody thinks America’s full, I can tell you that my community in Indiana isn’t full,” Buttigieg said. “We were built for 130,000 people and we only have a 100,000 now.”
Buttigieg criticized the president’s political strategy of trying to divide Americans instead of trying to lead to a process to legalize more immigrants.
He proposed extending amnesty and TPS status for Dreamers and other illegals in the country, as well as reforms for legal immigration and border security.
“We can’t expect that process to work if we aren’t willing to fix it,” he said.
He said he would welcome 30,000 more workers for taxpayers in South Bend, before commenting on the issue in Spanish.





There Is No ‘Labor Shortage’


Washington, D.C. (April 17, 2019) - A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies finds no empirical evidence of a "labor shortage" whereby employers need immigration  to fill jobs because they are unable to find American workers.

Jason Richwine, an independent policy analyst and the author of the report, said, "When employers tell us that they cannot find workers, what they really mean is that they cannot find workers willing to work for the low wage they'd like to pay. The percentage of working-age Americans not in the labor force remains significantly below the level from the year 2000, and employers should try to bring those Americans back first before they look to immigration."


Key findings in the report:
  • Shortages should not occur in a free market
  • Tight labor markets benefit marginalized groups
  • Wages have been stagnant over the long term
  • Labor force participation is down over the long term
  • Domestic industries should hire Americans
  • Natives participate in all major occupations
  • Plenty of STEM workers are available
  • Gains to the economy are not the same as gains to natives
  • Immigration is not an efficient solution to population aging

Immigration is fundamentally about trade-offs. Unfortunately, advocates have seized on the idea of a "labor shortage" in order to deny those trade-offs, arguing instead that immigration is necessary to fill jobs that cannot be filled by natives. Neither economic theory nor empirical evidence supports the notion of a "labor shortage". It's time to retire this talking point.



Feds: 12M Americans Remain Sidelined, Out of the Workforce



JOHN BINDER
  15 Apr 2019326
3:22

More than 12 million Americans have remain sidelined from the U.S. workforce despite their wanting full-time employment, federal data suggests.

Last month, there were more than 12 million Americans who were either unemployed, forced to work part-time jobs, out of the workforce but wanted jobs, or who were unemployed because they were discouraged by their job prospects.
Overall, about 6.2 million Americans were unemployed, about 13 percent of whom were teenagers and 6.7 percent of whom were black Americans. The unemployment rate for black Americans is more than double the unemployment rate of Asian Americans.
Additionally, about 4.5 million Americans are working part-time jobs despite wanting full-time jobs. These are mostly poor, working and lower-middle class Americans who say the job market has kept them in part-time work though they prefer being a full-time employee.
There are also about 1.4 million Americans who are entirely out of the workforce and thus not counted in the unemployment rate. These are working-age residents who have looked for a job over the last 12 months. Among those out of the workforce are 412,000 Americans who are discouraged by the job market and say they do not believe there are any jobs for them in the current economy.
While millions remain on the sidelines of the workforce, Democrats, some Republicans, and the big business lobby have suggested the U.S. bring more foreign workers to take blue collar and many white collar American jobs. Already, about 1.5 million illegal and legal immigrants are admitted to the country every year, at the detriment of U.S. wages.
Every one percent increase in the immigrant composition of American workers’ occupations reduces their weekly wages by about 0.5 percent, researcher Steven Camarotta has found. This means the average native-born American worker today has his weekly wages reduced by perhaps 8.5 percent because of current legal immigration levels.
In a state like Florida, where immigrants make up about 25.4 percent of the labor force, American workers have their weekly wages reduced by about 12.5 percent. In California, where immigrants make up 34 percent of the labor force, American workers’ weekly wages are reduced by potentially 17 percent.
Likewise, every one percent increase in the immigrant composition of low-skilled U.S. occupations reduces wages by about 0.8 percent. Should 15 percent of low-skilled jobs be held by foreign-born workers, it would reduce the wages of native-born American workers by perhaps 12 percent.
Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR), David Perdue (R-GA), and Josh Hawley (R-MO), on the other hand, have reintroduced the RAISE Act which would reduce legal immigration levels to about 500,000 admissions a year and end the process known as “chain migration,” where newly naturalized citizens are able to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S.
The plan would immediately tighten the labor market, advocates say, and thus boost wages and open job opportunities for America’s working and middle class that have struggled to re-enter the workforce.
The Washington, DC-imposed mass legal immigration policy is a boon to corporate executives, Wall Street, big business, and multinational conglomerates, as America’s working and middle class have their wealth redistributed to the country’s top earners through wage stagnation and increased public costs.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

Study: Nearly 1M Migrant Children Could Enter U.S. Before 2020 Election



Spencer Platt/Getty Images
JOHN BINDER
  17 Apr 20190
2:57

Nearly one million migrant children could enter the United States, either unaccompanied or with their border crossing parents, before the 2020 election if projected rates of illegal immigration pan out, new research finds.

Current illegal immigration projections by Princeton Policy Advisors researcher Steven Kopits predicts that there could be about 1.28 million border apprehensions this calendar year — a rate of illegal immigration that would exceed every fiscal year of former Presidents George W. Bush and Obama.
Kopits’ finds that up to 300,000 migrant children could enter the country by the time school begins in September for most students under a scenario where illegal immigration continues at projected rates throughout the next year and a half.
Assuming 80 percent of these migrant children enroll in school, the U.S. could be faced with absorbing 240,000 new migrant school students across the country –and specifically states like California, New York, Texas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and New Jersey — this coming school year, alone.
For the 2019 to 2020 school year, for instance, California would be forced to absorb about 50,000 new migrant students. Likewise, Texas would see an influx of about 36,000 migrant students.
Fast forward to the beginning of the next school year, September 2020 to June 2021, and the U.S. could have nearly a million new migrant children in the country before the 2020 presidential election, about 800,000 of which could enroll in school systems, under the mass migration scenario.
(Princeton Policy Advisors)
“Should the situation not be resolved and asylum seeking continue at the pace we anticipate for the coming year, by September 2020, nearly 1,000,000 asylum children could be in the US (arriving Jan. 2019 – Aug. 2020),” Kopits writes.
This translates to California’s public school system having to take about 168,000 new migrant students at the beginning of next year’s school year while Florida would see an influx of about 59,000 and for New Jersey, an influx of about 36,000. Texas would see an influx of about 120,000 new migrant students.
Skyrocketing illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border has not only strained public resources but could choke 4 percent wage hikes that President Trump has delivered to America’s blue collar and working class.
Experts like former Secretary of State Kris Kobach have warned that if illegal immigration levels continue to rise over this year and throughout 2020, those wage hikes will be depleted by a saturated labor market with more cheap, foreign workers competing against Americans.
Every year, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million illegal and legal immigrants, with more than 70 percent arriving through 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.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

California became a Democratic stronghold not because 

Californians became socialists, but because millions of

socialists moved there.  Immigration turned California blue, 

and immigration is ultimately to blame for California's high 

poverty level.

Immigration as Economic Warfare




Political influence in America is garnered through a number of mechanisms -- campaign contributions, social media, YouTube, news channels, and authority from moral figures such as the church, to name a few. However, the dominant force in American politics for the last two decades has been economic warfare against American citizens.
This economic warfare has two primary components; the use of government to economically favor one group over another; and the collusion of immigrant groups to economically inhibit Americans who oppose replacement migration.
The first aspect of this warfare is simple. The government institutes programs that give special privileges to one group of people in the form of educational access and benefits, exclusive contracts with the government, quotas within the job market, and legal protections that are exclusive to those people. While many of these benefits are subtle, on multigenerational timelines they effectively destroy the unprotected group while ensuring the success of the protected group. In addition to this, there is the selective enforcement of laws and the absolution of some groups from many laws.
However, the more important aspect of this warfare is the collusion of immigrants to exclude portions of the native population from the economy. This activity has two facets -- exclusion from the market and denial of service.
Consider a nation where the native people makes up 70% of the population and the immigrant population makes up 30%. If the entirety of the immigrant population refuses to purchase the products of the native population, then as long as the native population does not reciprocate this behavior, immigrant businesses have access to 100% of the market and the native businesses have access to only 70% of the marketplace. The end result of this activity is that immigrant businesses will always win out over native businesses.
In practice, the immigrant population need not exclude all the native population. They only need to target those who openly oppose their goals of mass legal and illegal immigration. Add in the portion of the native population that goes along with the boycott of the nativists, and it becomes impossible for anyone within the native group who opposes replacement migration to complete in the marketplace.
In effect, a smaller population of people willing to engage in this economic exclusion can unquestionably control the policies of a nation when the larger group is unwilling or incapable of implementing similar policies. The smaller population has effectively conquered the larger population and controls the political future of the nation.
While marketplace exclusion is passive, the denial of service phase of the warfare is active. Here, the immigrant population and those who support the policy of replacement migration implement the following practices:
  • Place pressure on employers to fire natives openly opposed to replacement
  • Deny platforms to the native population that opposes replacement
    • Payment processors
    • YouTube
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • Email, etc
  • Write articles condemning the natives and ensure that anyone who employs them will be targeted as well
  • Engage in violence against the natives and protest their house and employment
  • Deny legal protections to those nativists as a recourse of defense from violence
  • Prosecute any physical defense mounted by the nativists as initiatory violence
  • Place the same pressures on their families
Using these practices, the immigrant population and their supporters can effectively destroy the ability of any native member to economically support themselves. Opposition to the immigrant group is impossible as members cannot raise capital, are not protected from violence, and have their personal sources of income destroyed. Their First Amendment rights are effectively nonexistent as exercising that right results of violence and economic destruction at the hands of foreign powers.
It is in this state that the American people now find themselves. Any citizen who openly opposes replacement migration and supports the enforcement of U.S. laws is denigrated by foreign media, has their personal businesses attacked, and if they attempt to peaceably assemble, then they are set upon by violent political groups like Antifa that assault them in the open without fear of police or legal punishment.
The end result of this economic warfare is the usurpation of power from American citizens to foreign nationals. First, this is hidden but as their power grows it moves into the open. This can be seen in Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez asserting that immigration laws should not apply to Latinos as this land is rightfully theirs, as well as Senator Kamala Harris asserting that foreign nationals have the right to make laws with respect to U.S. citizens.
There is no good response to this type of cultural and economic warfare, but the first step in defeating it is acknowledging both that it is happening and that the American people have both the right and the obligation to oppose it.

Buttigieg weasels away from any answer 


about resolving border crisis, except to 


claim that Trump likes it




What's Indiana for "weasel"? Indiana has two native species of weasels: the long-tailed weasel and the least weasel.  Pete Buttigieg comes off as a human version of the latter. 
Asked by Axios what he'd do about the immigration crisis, South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg didn't have any answers.
But he sure as heck had a psychological reading about what President Trump must be thinking as he strives to resolve the U.S. border crisis with congressional Democrats, open-borders activists, cartel human-smuggling interests, and left-wing judges lined up against him.
Here are Buttigieg's slippery non-answers to the Axios interview questions, pretty sensible ones, with every last one of Buttigieg's answers revolving around blaming President Trump.
"Axios on HBO": "Do you acknowledge that a hundred thousand migrants crossing the southern border for the second month in a row represents a crisis?"
Pete Buttigieg: "It certainly represents a crisis of largely this administration's making."
So is it or isn't it a crisis, Pete?  And exactly how did Trump's effort to restore integrity to the U.S. border make it a crisis?  Is it better to leave it open instead?  Wouldn't the "crisis" part be in the cartels enticing migrants to come to the states, and in the leftist efforts here to stop Trump from enforcing existing U.S. law?  Which is it, Pete?
"Axios on HBO": "Is President Trump right to ask for more money for barriers and to toughen the vetting of people claiming asylum?"
Pete Buttigieg: "Look, it's worth having a conversation about border security in the context of comprehensive immigration reform, but President Trump is wrong in his approach on this issue, at every point. From the near-term part, which is horrible policies like family separation and also kind of thoughtlessly using U.S. troops as props on the border, to the big picture, which is that this would not be such a problem, if we had stability in Central American countries. And it turns out that immigration is more useful to this president as a crisis unsolved than it would be as an achievement if he actually fixed it. We could fix it. I mean there's enough of a consensus among the American people and even in Washington about the terms of bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform and yet they still can't deliver because the president needs this to be a problem for his domestic political purposes."
No answer whatsoever on that one.  Money for borders?  Tightening asylum rules?  Answer the question, doofus.
Of course, he doesn't.  Buttigieg just wants "a conversation," which is the old Kamala Harris dodge to avoid any pro-offered solutions to the public during the policy debate portion of the election, all "in the context of comprehensive immigration reform," whatever that means.  What we can tell is that he doesn't like troops at the border; he likes the border better without anyone guarding it; he doesn't like "family separations" (he doesn't mention the rent-a-kid trade the non-separation policy has created); and he claims that the bigger issue is "stability" in Central America, some of the region's oldest democracies, with Guatemala going to the polls this week.  How exactly is Central American stability something of "Trump's making," as he claims in his first answer?
"Axios on HBO": "So you're saying the president is using the border crisis to get re-elected."
Pete Buttigieg: "The president needs this crisis to get worse, even though it makes a liar out of him. I don't think he's worried about that. He's worried about the ability to —"
Huh?  Can't tell what he's saying, all I can tell is that he isn't answering the question, weaseling away further.
"Axios on HBO": "You're not saying he's literally making it worse."
Pete Buttigieg: "I don't think he cares if it gets better, but he certainly doesn't benefit from comprehensively fixing the problem. And I wouldn't put it past him to allow it to become worse in order to have it be a more divisive issue, so that he could benefit politically."
Trump wants to make it worse, so people will elect him?  He doesn't know us voters very well, does he?  And come to think of it, he doesn't seem to know much about Trump, or why we elected Trump.
Where's his border crisis solution?  Obama got called the "deporter in chief" by leftists for his weak measures to enforce rule of law at the border.  Is Buttigieg willing to allow himself to get that "deporter in chief" title, too?  Can't quite tell with any of that interview answer.  What does he mean by "comprehensive immigration reform."  In the past, that's meant amnesty for lawbreakers, ringing a dinner triangle for more to come.  Is that what he's trying to tell us he wants?  Can't tell from that interview.
All we get from him on resolving the border crisis is a promise of "a conversation." I imagine this can go on a long time as millions pour over our unguarded border and thousands now adding to the surge from from well beyond Central America.
This guy's not ready to give any answers. Yet somehow, he's gotten a spot in the Democratic Party's 20-person debate line-up where he will have considerably less time to provide his answers than he did with the more-relaxed interview setting with Axios. Sounds like a great debate setup for him actually, because he can give all the non-answers he likes. But too bad there's not a little table for him. With interview answers like this, he's not ready for prime time. 
Image credit: U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, public domain.  Modification added by Monica Showalter.



Feds ‘Actively Working’ on Crackdown on Welfare-Dependent Immigration




ages


JOHN BINDER

Federal immigration officials at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agency are “actively working” to enforce President Donald Trump’s recent crackdown on welfare-dependent legal immigration to the U.S.

In a memo last week, Acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli said that staff would “develop and implement guidance” on Trump’s presidential memorandum signed last month that mandates American taxpayers be reimbursed when a legal immigrant uses public welfare.
The order signed by Trump will enforce existing 1996 laws known as the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act” and “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act,” which were signed by then-President Bill Clinton.
Cuccinelli’s memo to staff reads:
As part of USCIS’ implementation of this memorandum, USCIS officers will now be required to remind individuals at their adjustment of status interviews of their sponsors’ responsibilities under existing law and regulations. Our officers must remind applicants and sponsors that the Affidavit of Support is a legal and enforceable contract between the sponsor and the federal government. The sponsor must be willing and able to financially support the intending immigrant as outlined by law and regulations (see INA 213A and 8 CFR 213a). If the sponsored immigrant receives any federal means-tested public benefits, the sponsor will be expected to reimburse the benefits-granting agency for every dollar of benefits received by the immigrant. [Emphasis added]
Over the next several months, federal agencies will develop and implement guidance on the presidential memorandum to make sure that agencies enforce these requirements. USCIS will do our part, and we are actively working to implement the President’s directive with our federal partners, including by updating policies and regulations. We continue to advance the President’s directive to enforce the public charge ground of inadmissibility, which seeks to ensure that immigrants are self-sufficient and rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations rather than public resources. [Emphasis added]
“Despite it being required under long-standing law, sponsors have never been held accountable for the public benefits taken by immigrants,” an administration official told Breitbart News. “This should be a reminder that signing an affidavit of support as a sponsor is both a promise and responsibility the government takes very seriously and will carry real consequences so that taxpayers don’t bear this burden for them.”
The first function of the order mandates that a family member or business sponsor of a legal immigrant looking to permanently resettle in the U.S. is responsible for paying back the welfare costs previously used by that immigrant.
For example, if a visa holder has used $10,000 in food stamp benefits while living in the U.S., when a family member sponsors them for a green card, that family member will be notified of the legal immigrant’s welfare costs to taxpayers and obligated to pay back the amount.
If the sponsor of a legal immigrant does not pay the welfare cost, the Treasury Offset Program will take the money out of the sponsor’s taxes for that year. Federal officials said implementation of this order would begin in September.
Study: Migrants Using Nearly 2X the Welfare of Native-Born Americanshttps://t.co/70GkxRA38t
via @BreitbartNews @JxhnBinder
— Immigration Reform Law Institute (@IRLILaw) March 13, 2019
The second function of the order ensures that the income a sponsor to a legal immigrant is taken into consideration when a legal immigrant is applying for federal welfare.
Currently, only the income of legal immigrants is considered by federal agencies when the national is applying for public benefits. Under the rules set out by Clinton’s 1996 law, the Trump administration will make certain that the income of both the legal immigrant and their sponsor is considered when applying for benefits.
The order also seeks to ban illegal aliens from receiving public welfare benefits at the American taxpayers’ expense.
Legal immigration controls that would prevent welfare-dependent nationals from permanently resettling in the U.S. — a rule set to be enforced sometime this year — would be a boon for American taxpayers in the form of an annual $57.4 billion tax cut. That is the amount taxpayers spend every year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.2 million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants.
As Breitbart News reported, the majority of 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 the 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.


No comments: