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
ILLEGALS
& WELFARE
WE CAN’T
TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN, AND YET WE LET MEXICO BUILD THEIR BILLION DOLLAR WELFARE
STATE ON OUR BACKS!!!
70% OF
ILLEGALS GET WELFARE!
“According to the Centers for Immigration
Studies, April '11, at least 70% of Mexican illegal alien families receive some
type of welfare in the US!!! cis.org”
So when cities across the country declare that they will NOT be
sanctuary, guess where ALL the illegals, criminals, gang members fleeing ICE
will go???? straight to your welcoming city. So ironically the people fighting
for sanctuary city status, may have an unprecedented crime wave to deal with
along with the additional expense.
*
$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born
children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
*
$12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary
school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word
of English.
*
$22 billion is spent on (AFDC) welfare to illegal aliens each
year.
*
$2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs
such as (SNAP) food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal
aliens.
*
$3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Does not include local jails and State Prisons.
*
2012 illegal aliens sent home $62 BILLION in remittances back to
their countries of origin. This is why Mexico is getting involved in
our politics.
*
$200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are
caused by the illegal aliens.
THE DISUNITED STATES: The world’s
welfare office!
America is a nation with a severe
housing crisis, a million legals who are homeless, tens of millions of legals
who have given up finding a job that pays living wages and yet the borders are
wide open to keep the hordes coming simply to keep wages DEPRESSED.
THE
SLOW DEATH OF CALIFORNIA, A WELFARE STATE AND COLONY OF MEXICO
With crime soaring, rampant homelessness,
sanctuary state status attracting the highest illegal immigrant population in
the country and its “worst state in the U.S. to do business” ranking for more than a decade, California and
its expansive, debt-ridden, progressive government is devolving into a
third-world country. JANET LEVY
AMERICA:
THE WORLD’S WELFARE OFFICE
With crime soaring, rampant homelessness,
sanctuary state status attracting the highest illegal immigrant population
in the country and its “worst state in the U.S. to do business” ranking for more than a decade,
California and its expansive, debt-ridden, progressive government is
devolving into a third-world country. JANET LEVY
"This is how they will destroy America from
within. The leftist billionaires who orchestrate these plans are
wealthy. Those tasked with representing us in Congress will never be exposed
to the cost of the invasion of millions of migrants. They have
nothing but contempt for those of us who must endure the consequences of our
communities being intruded upon by gang members, drug dealers and human
traffickers. These people have no intention of becoming Americans;
like the Democrats who welcome them, they have contempt for us." PATRICIA
McCARTHY
"Most Californians, who have seen
their taxes increase while public services deteriorate, already know the impact
that mass illegal immigration is having on their communities, but even they may
be shocked when they learn just how much of a drain illegal immigration has
become." FAIR President Dan Stein
WE SAT AND WATCHED WHILE THEY DESTROYED OUR COUNTRY!
We are now in the process of destabilizing
our own country. FROSTY WOOLDRIGE
Welfare for Refugees Cost Americans $123 Billion in 10 Years ….YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK!
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/10/frosty-wooldridge-let-us-open-us.html
THE CONSPIRACY TO SABOTAGE HOMELAND SECURITY
The
Democrat Party’s secret agenda for wider open borders, more welfare for
invading illegals, more jobs and free anything they illegally vote for…. All to
destroy the two-party system and build the GLOBALISTS’ DEMOCRAT PARTY FOR WIDER
OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED.
https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/11/frontpage-hidden-agenda-of-pueblo-sin.html
Demonstrably
and irrefutably the Democrat Party became the party whose principle objective
is to thoroughly transform the nature of the American electorate by means of
open borders and the mass, unchecked importation of illiterate third world
peasants who will vote in overwhelming numbers for Democrats and their La Raza
welfare state. FRONTPAGE MAG
AMERICA, THE ANCHOR BABIES FOR WELFARE
STATE
“Through
love of having children we're going to take over." Augustin Cebada, Information Minister of
Brown Berets, militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S.
citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles, 7/4/96
*
“The children of illegal aliens are commonly known as “anchor babies,”
as they anchor their illegal alien and noncitizen parents in the U.S. There
are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the country, a population that exceeds the total number of annual American births.” JOHN BINDER
MARK
LEVIN:
‘Unbridled
Immigration, Legal and Illegal, Is Taking the Country Down’
“Through love of having children we're going
to take over." Augustin Cebada,
Information Minister of Brown Berets, militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan
shouting at U.S. citizens at an Independence Day rally in Los Angeles, 7/4/96
This annual income for an impoverished American family
is $10,000 less than the more than $34,500 in federal funds which are spent on
each unaccompanied minor border crosser.
A study by Tom Wong of the University
of California at San Diego discovered that more than 25 percent of
DACA-enrolled illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That totals
about 200,000 anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled illegal
aliens. This does not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified illegal
aliens. JOHN BINDER
“As Breitbart News recently
reported, there are more anchor baby births in the Los Angeles, California
metro area than the total U.S. births in 14 states and the District of
Colombia. Every year, American taxpayers are billed about $2.4 billion to pay for the
births of illegal aliens.” JOHN BINDER
THE INVASION:
“The
radicals seek nothing less than secession from the United States whether to
form their own sovereign state or to reunify with Mexico. Those who desire
reunification with Mexico are irredentists who seek to reclaim Mexico's
"lost" territories in the American Southwest.” Maria Hsia
Chang Professor of Political Science, University of Nevada Reno
"Mexican
president candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador called for mass immigration to
the United States, declaring it a "human right". We will defend all
the (Mexican) invaders in the American," Obrador said, adding that
immigrants "must leave their towns and find a life, job, welfare, and free
medical in the United States."
"Fox’s Tucker Carlson noted Thursday that
Obrador has previously proposed ranting AMNESTY TO MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS.
“America is now Mexico’s social safety net, and that’s a very good deal for the
Mexican ruling class,” Carlson added."
All
that “cheap” labor is staggeringly expensive!
"Most
Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services
deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on
their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much
of a drain illegal immigration has become." FAIR President Dan Stein.
*
Californians bear an enormous fiscal
burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million
residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services
for that population is $25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of
about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S. citizen.
THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHIPS IN MORE THAN ONE BILLION PER YEAR FOR MEX ANCHOR
BABY BREEDING OF FUTURE DEMS!
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
AMNESTY: THE HOAX TO KEEP WAGES FOR LEGALS DEPRESSED!
"Critics argue that giving amnesty to 12
to 30 million illegal aliens in the U.S. would have an immediate negative
impact on America’s working and middle class — specifically black Americans and
the white working class — who would be in direct competition for blue-collar
jobs with the largely low-skilled illegal alien population." JOHN BINDER
*
"Additionally,
under current legal immigration laws, if given amnesty, the illegal alien
population would be allowed to bring an unlimited number of their foreign
relatives to the U.S. This population could boost already high legal
immigration levels to an unprecedented high. An amnesty for illegal aliens
would also likely triple the number of border-crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border."
JOHN BINDER
*
“At the current rate of invasion (mostly through
Mexico, but also through Canada) the United States will be completely over run
with illegal aliens by the year 2025. I’m not talking about legal immigrants
who follow US law to become citizens. In less than 20 years, if we do not stop
the invasion, ILLEGAL aliens and their offspring will be the dominant
population in the United States”…. Tom Barrett
(TOP – WELFARE,
LA RAZA MALKIN, HOSPITAL COST, CASE STUDY,)
HERITAGE FOUNDATION:
AMNESTY WILL ADD ANOTHER
100 MILLION IMMIGRANTS TO AMERICA’S OPEN BORDERS
HEAR THAT SUCKING
SOUND?
IT’S MEXICO SUCKING
THE BLOOD OF AMERICA…. HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS FOR WELFARE, “FREE” HEALTHCARE,
HEROIN SALES, CRIME COST AND THEN THEY SEND TENS OF BILLIONS BACK TO NARCOMEX
“In the U.S. the remittances that come of illegal
immigration drive down U.S. wages, particularly of those on the lowest-skilled
parts of the ladder, and as money flows out from local communities, leaves them
underinvested and run-down. Nobody can live two places at once. Illegal
immigrants live here but their money lives in Mexico. And it's often untaxed.”
MONICA SHOWALTER
Who ultimately really
pays for all the true cost of all that "cheap" labor?
THE DEVASTATING COST OF MEXICO’S WELFARE STATE IN
AMERICA’S OPEN BORDERS
“The Democrats had abandoned their working-class
base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were
actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration”. DANIEL
GREENFIELD / FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE
LA RAZA DOUBLED U.S. POPULATION AND VOTED TO SURRENDER
AMERICAN BORDERS FOR EASY PLUNDERING BY NARCOMEX.
*
“Through love of having children we're going to take
over." Augustin Cebada, Information Minister of Brown Berets,
militant para-military soldiers of Aztlan shouting at U.S. citizens at an
Independence Day rally in Los Angeles, 7/4/96
“The cost of the Dream Act is far bigger than the
Democrats or their media allies admit. Instead of covering 690,000 younger
illegals now enrolled in former President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty,
the Dream Act would legalize at least 3.3 million
illegals,
according to a pro-immigration group, the Migration Policy Institute.”
THE NEW PRIVILEGED CLASS: Illegals!
This is why you work From Jan - May
paying taxes to the government ....with the rest of the calendar year is money
for you and your family.
Take, for example, an illegal alien
with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that
wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year,
if he files an Income Tax Return, with his fake Social Security number, he gets
an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200..... free.
He qualifies for Section 8 housing
and subsidized rent.
He qualifies for food stamps.
He qualifies for free (no
deductible, no co-pay) health care.
His children get free breakfasts
and lunches at school.
He requires bilingual teachers and
books.
He qualifies for relief from high
energy bills.
If they are or become, aged, blind
or disabled, they qualify for SSI.
Once qualified for SSI they can
qualify for Medicare. All of this is at (our) taxpayer's expense.
He doesn't worry about car
insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.
Taxpayers provide Spanish language
signs, bulletins and printed material.
He and his family receive the
equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.
Working Americans are lucky to have
$5.00 or $6.00/hour left after Paying their bills and his.
The American taxpayers also pay for
increased crime, graffiti and trash clean-up.
Cheap
labor? YEAH RIGHT! Wake up people!
JOBS:
FLOODING AMERICAN WITH FOREIGNERS HELPS KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED AND
BILLIONAIRES HAPPY!
|
JOE LEGAL v LA RAZA JOSE ILLEGAL
Here’s how it breaks
down; will make you want to be an illegal!
THE TAX-FREE MEXICAN
UNDERGROUND ECONOMY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY IS ESTIMATED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $2
BILLION YEARLY!
Staggering
expensive "cheap" Mexican labor did not build this once great nation!
Look what it has done to Mexico. It's all about keeping wages depressed and
passing along the true cost of the invasion, their welfare, and crime tidal
wave costs to the backs of the American people!
AMERICA: YOU’RE BETTER
OFF BEING AN ILLEGAL!!!
This annual income for an impoverished American family
is $10,000 less than the more than $34,500 in federal funds which are spent on
each unaccompanied minor border crosser.
A study by Tom Wong of the University
of California at San Diego discovered that more than 25 percent of DACA-enrolled
illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That totals about 200,000
anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens. This does
not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified illegal aliens. JOHN BINDER
“The Democrats had abandoned
their working-class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when
what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration”.
DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE
As
Breitbart News has reported, U.S.
households headed by foreign-born residents use nearly twice the welfare of
households headed by native-born Americans.
Simultaneously,
illegal immigration next year is on track to soar to the
highest level in a decade, with a potential 600,000 border crossers expected.
“More than
750 million people want to migrate to another country permanently, according to
Gallup research published Monday, as 150 world leaders sign up to the
controversial UN global compact which critics say makes migration a human
right.” VIRGINIA HALE
For example, a DACA amnesty would cost American taxpayers about $26 billion, more than the border wall, and that does not include the money taxpayers would have to fork up to subsidize the legal immigrant relatives of DACA illegal aliens.
Exclusive–Steve
Camarota: Every Illegal Alien Costs Americans $70K Over Their Lifetime
Every illegal alien, over the
course of their lifetime, costs American taxpayers about $70,000, Center for
Immigration Studies Director of Research Steve Camarota says.
During an interview with
SiriusXM Patriot’s Breitbart News Daily, Camarota said his research has revealed the enormous
financial burden that illegal immigration has on America’s working and middle
class taxpayers in terms of public services, depressed wages, and welfare.
“In a person’s lifetime,
I’ve estimated that an illegal border crosser might cost taxpayers … maybe over
$70,000 a year as a net cost,” Camarota said. “And that excludes the cost of
their U.S.-born children, which gets pretty big when you add that in.”
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.
///
DACA
Amnesty Would Render Border Wall Useless, Cost Americans $26B
Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty- mages
5:36
A deal in which President Trump accepts an amnesty for
millions of illegal aliens enrolled and eligible for President Obama’s Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in exchange for minor border wall
funding would be counterproductive to the “America First” goals of the
administration, depressing U.S. wages in the process ahead of the
2020 election.
As Breitbart News
has extensively chronicled, Attorney General Jeff Sessions
ended the DACA program last year, although it’s official termination has
been held up in court by left-wing judges.
Since then, a coalition
of establishment Republicans and Democrats have sought to ram an amnesty for up
to 3.5 million DACA-enrolled and eligible illegal aliens through Congress, an
initiative supported by the donor class.
CLOSE | X
Such a plan, most
recently, has been touted in an effort to negotiate a deal in which Trump
receives anywhere between $1.6 tand $5 billion for his proposed
U.S.-Mexico border wall in exchange for approving a DACA amnesty for millions.
The amnesty would render
the border wall useless, as it would not only trigger increased illegal
immigration at the border — which is already set to hit the highest annual level in a decade next year — but
increased legal immigration to the country.
Last year, Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen admittedthat even discussion of a DACA amnesty increased illegal immigration at the southern border, as
migrants surge to the U.S. in hopes of making it into the country to later cash
in on the amnesty.
Kansas Secretary of
State Kris Kobach previously predicted that a DACA amnesty would trigger
an immediate flood of a million illegal aliens arriving at the U.S.-Mexico
border. In 2014, when Obama enacted DACA by Executive Order, the temporary
amnesty caused a surge at the southern border, as noted by the Migration Policy Institute.
In terms of legal
immigration, a DACA amnesty would implement a never-ending flow of foreign relatives to the DACA
illegal aliens who can be readily sponsored for green cards through the process
known as “chain migration.”
According
to Princeton University researchers Stacie Carr and Marta Tienda, the
average number of family members brought to the U.S. by newly naturalized
Mexican immigrants stands at roughly six. Therefore, should all 1.5
million amnestied illegal aliens bring six relatives each to the U.S., that
would constitute a total chain migration of nine million new foreign nationals
entering the U.S.
If the number of
amnestied illegal aliens who gain a pathway to citizenship under an immigration
deal were to rise to the full 3.3 million who would be eligible for DREAM Act
amnesty, and if each brought in three to six foreign family members, the chain
migration flow could range from 9.9 million to 19.8 million foreign nationals
coming to the U.S.
At this rate of chain
migration solely from a DACA amnesty, the number of legal immigrants arriving
to the U.S. with family relations to the amnestied population would
potentially outpace the population of New York City, New York — where
more than 8.5 million residents live.
Should the goal of
Trump’s proposed border wall be to reduce illegal immigration and eventually
incentivize lawmakers to reduce legal immigration levels — where the U.S.
imports 1.5 million immigrants every year — to raise the wages of America’s
working and middle class, a DACA amnesty would have the opposite impact,
increasing illegal and legal immigration levels.
The president has also
touted the wall as a benefit to American citizens in terms of cost. A border
wall is projected to cost about $25 million, a tiny figure compared to
the $116 billion that illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers every
year.
A DACA amnesty, coupled
with a border wall, would have steep costs for American citizens — wiping out
the cost-benefit to taxpayers of the wall.
For example, a DACA
amnesty would cost American taxpayers about $26 billion, more than the border wall, and that
does not include the money taxpayers would have to fork up to subsidize the
legal immigrant relatives of DACA illegal aliens. And because amnesties for illegal aliens
tend to be larger than initially predicted, the total cost would likely be even
higher for taxpayers.
Additionally,
about one in five DACA illegal aliens, after an amnesty, would end up
on food stamps, while at least one in seven would go on Medicaid, the CBO has estimated.
The number of DACA
illegal aliens who will go on Medicaid following an amnesty is likely to be
much larger than what the CBO reports.
Previous research by the Center for Immigration Studies indicates
that the average immigrant household in the U.S. takes 44 percent more
Medicaid money than the average American household. The research also noted
that 56 percent of households led by illegal aliens have at least one
person on Medicaid.
Another study, reported
by Breitbart News, indicates that the CBO estimate of
DACA illegal aliens who would end up on Medicaid after an amnesty is the lowest
total possible of illegal aliens who would go on the welfare program.
Meanwhile, a DACA
amnesty would drag increasing U.S. wages down for the country’s working and
middle class, delivering benefits to the business lobby while squashing the
intended goals of the Trump administration ahead of the 2020 presidential
election. The plan
is also likely to hit the black American community the hardest, as they are forced to compete for blue collar jobs
against a growing illegal and legal immigrant population from Central America.
On Tuesday, Trump said
he would be willing to shut down the federal government in order to secure
funding for his proposed border wall. Democrat leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer
(D-NY) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have previously indicated that they would
be willing to swap an amnesty in exchange for funding border “security
measures.”
THE INVASION THAT AMERICA INVITED
Simultaneously, illegal immigration next year is on track
to soar to the highest level in a decade, with a potential 600,000
border crossers expected.
“More than 750 million people want to migrate to
another country permanently, according to Gallup research published Monday, as
150 world leaders sign up to the controversial UN global compact which critics
say makes migration a human right.” VIRGINIA HALE
Census Confirms: 63 Percent of
‘Non-Citizens’ on Welfare, 4.6 Million Households
By
Paul Bedard
“Concern over immigrant welfare use is justified, as households headed by
non-citizens use means-tested welfare at high rates. Non-citizens in the data
include illegal immigrants, long-term temporary visitors like guest workers,
and permanent residents who have not naturalized. While barriers to welfare use
exist for these groups, it has not prevented them from making extensive use of
the welfare system, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children,”
added the Washington-based immigration think tank.
The numbers are huge. The report said that there are 4,684,784 million
non-citizen households receiving welfare.
. . .
Their key findings in the analysis:
* In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they
used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed
households.
*Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of
food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent
vs. 23 percent for natives).
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/census-confirms-63-percent-of-non-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households
Let’s Shrink Illegal Alien Population, Save Billions
at Same Time
The usually discussed techniques for lowering the size
of the illegal alien population are two in number:
- Reducing the inflow of illegals, such as by building a wall;
and
- Mandating the departure of others through deportation.
There is a third variable, rarely discussed, that
reaches the same goal without coercion and could be something that Democrats
and Republicans might agree on: the subsidized and voluntary departure of some
of the undocumented and other aging, low-income foreign-born. It probably would
require an act of Congress.
I am thinking of a technique for selectively
encouraging the emigration of those among the foreign-born who are most likely
to become welfare users in the future. It would save billions and billions of
federal dollars a year, and some state funds as well.
It is based on, among other things, the fact that most
of the illegals are from warmer climates than our own, and reminds me of a
conversation I had years ago on this subject with a Jamaica-born resident of
the United States who told me of her fond memories of the warmth of that
island: "Don't forget, old bones are cold bones."
Hence, the proposed Return to Warmth (RTW) program,
which would directly subsidize the departure of numerous foreign-born persons,
many of them here illegally, and would indirectly help the
economies of the nations from which they migrated. That would be the genial
face of the RTW program, which fits with its deliberately friendly name.
Meanwhile, it would prevent large numbers of these
migrants from participating in our Medicare program and other (less expensive)
income transfer programs, saving billions a year, and thus making RTW
attractive to conservatives.
Let's look at some specifics.
In the following table, we show the roughly estimated
2017 per capita costs to the United States of the foreign-born Social Security
beneficiaries while in the United States, and while in their home countries. It
is drawn from government data easily available on the internet, such as
the Medicare budget (which
was $720 billion in 2017) and on similar sources for the numbers of
beneficiaries.
The table is also based on the fact that many Social
Security beneficiaries, including many of the foreign-born, can draw their
checks in most of the rest of the world, but would not be
able to participate in other programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps,
and Supplemental Security Income. All four require residence in the United
States.
Given the information above, one might assume that
virtually no one would want to take their Social Security benefits abroad. That
is not the case.
More than 650,000 Social Security checks are mailed
overseas each month and this number (and the percentage of retirees who do
this) is slowly but steadily increasing, according to various issues of the of
the Social Security Administration's Annual Statistical Supplement. Here are the totals and the percentages of all
beneficiaries for three recent years:
During the early 1990s the percentage was about 0.75
percent.
Clearly this is an arrangement that is, slowly,
growing in popularity. My suggestion is that we deliberately increase its size.
The evidence, incidentally, suggests strongly that
most of these checks are notgoing to wealthy people who have
decided to retire to the Riviera rather than Boca Raton. Average annual payouts
of Social Security benefits were $15,208 nationally in 2017, and only $8,178
for those getting their checks abroad. Thus, the overseas checks were only 54
percent of the national average, reflecting the substantially lower lifetime
incomes of those who retired abroad. This is not a rich population.
While I cannot document it, I learned some years ago,
in a conversation with a SSA staffer, that more than 90 percent of those
getting checks overseas were not born in the United States.
Proposal
The U.S. should create a new program (RTW) to
encourage these movements back to the home countries, providing a range of new
benefits to stimulate such returns, but designing them in such a way that the
returnees will tend to stay returned once they have left.
If the United States can save $17,000 a year on each
of hundreds of thousands of people, and all of them will stop making the impact
that the rest of us do on the environment, this country will be making major
progress, without using any coercion at all. And the savings of some $17,000 a
year, per capita, means that it would be appropriate to offer some really
enticing rewards to those thinking about leaving the country.
Who Would Qualify? Since
a major part of the motivation is to reduce the illegal alien population, such
persons would not be disqualified. I would limit it to
foreign-born persons who qualify now, or will soon, for Social Security
retirement, of whatever civil status, from illegal to citizen. It would only
apply to people wanting to return to their native lands, and might not apply to
a comparative few whose homes are within, say, 300 miles of the U.S. borders.
(These people would be tempted to live secretly in the United States while
collecting abroad.)
Dependents of the beneficiary could qualify, at any
age, but the principals would have to be 61 years of age or older.
The Reward Package. This
has to be enticing enough to encourage Social Security beneficiaries to seek
it, despite the basic math outlined above (which many of them might sense, even
without knowing the details.) Such a package might include:
- Retirement benefits at the age of 61, instead of the usual 62;
- A 10 percent bonus on the Social Security benefit while the
beneficiary is abroad;
- Free one-way plane tickets for the principal and the dependents;
and
- Checks totaling $5,000, half on arrival in the home country,
and the other half a year later, but only paid in person, at a U.S.
consulate or embassy.
Holy cow, some might say, you are going to be giving
some illegals 10 percent more in Social Security for the rest of their lives!
Isn't that an extravagant waste?
The 10 percent increase, based on current Social
Security data, would mean that the overseas individual would get an additional
$818 a year. That would be more than balanced by the Medicare savings of
$10,778 a year; maybe we should set the Social Security benefit increase at 25
percent or more.
The monthly checks would have to be cashed in the home
country, in person, by the beneficiary, and within 60 days of their issuance.
Further, such checks would need to be endorsed by the beneficiary along with a
thumb print of that person, and a note on the back of the check indicating the
name of the cashier who accepted the check, and the date thereof. Banks that
showed a pattern of check abuse would be barred from depositing these checks in
the future.
All receiving any part of the bonus package would have
to agree in writing to not seek to return to the United States under any
circumstances for three or five years; if they did (or their checks were cashed
in the United States), the government would halve the future benefit checks
until the bonuses had been repaid. If they came back to the United States twice
within those years, the beneficiary would be no longer be eligible for SSA
retirement checks unless, perhaps, they were citizens, in which case a milder
penalty would be exacted. (No one using the RTW benefits would be eligible to
apply for naturalization, or any other immigration benefit.)
The benefit package suggested above is not set in
stone; it could be altered, but it would have to offer the foreign-born a
substantial benefit. Provisions should be made to use tax funds to compensate
the Social Security system for its additional costs.
The benefits should be made available to those in
deportation hearings, if they were otherwise eligible, thus reducing the
backlogs in the immigration courts.
Someone who had received the rewards described above
could ask to be excused from the program by voluntarily returning the extra
moneys; but this would be rare, and would be available to only those who had
been in the United States legally at the time of retirement.
Other Advantages of RTW. Other advantages to the government of RTW would
be lowering pressure on energy assistance plans for the poor; on public
housing, which in many cities includes special housing for the elderly; and on
non-public food banks and the like. In addition, there would be the less
obvious advantages of a lower population and less wear and tear on the built
environment.
In the specific instance of shutting down Temporary
Protected Status for people from some nations, it would ease the departure of
the older ones. Perhaps some TPS beneficiaries within a year or two of the RTW
minimum age could be given special dispensations.
As for the returnees, the principal advantage to them
would be the lower costs of living in the homelands, as opposed to those costs
in the United States. There would also be the previously cited warmer weather
(for most), the ease of returning to a situation where everyone uses one's
native language, and for many, losing the fear of deportation. In short, a
win-win situation.
This suggestion takes a long view of the question of
migrant utilization of our income transfer programs and would impose some
short-term costs on the government (the reward packages) in exchange for steady
savings in the future. It certainly would be subject to attempted abuse, but in
the long run it would start saving us $17,000 a year times hundreds of
thousands of people.
It would be a quiet program, in contrast to the wall
and border skirmishes, but it would inevitably lead to fewer illegal aliens in
the nation, and lower welfare costs.
Why not try it for a while?
David North, a fellow at the Center for Immigration
Studies, has over 40 years of immigration policy experience.
Study: More than 7-in-10 California Immigrant
Welfare
US Customs and Border Patrol
2:45
More than 7-in-10 households headed by immigrants in the
state of California are on taxpayer-funded welfare, a new study reveals.
The latest Census Bureau data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) finds that
about 72 percent of households headed by noncitizens and immigrants use one or
more forms of taxpayer-funded welfare programs in California — the number one
immigrant-receiving state in the U.S.
Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of households headed by
native-born Americans use welfare in California.
All four states with the largest foreign-born populations,
including California, have extremely high use of welfare by immigrant
households. In Texas, for example, nearly 70 percent of households headed by
immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare. Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of
native-born households in Texas are on welfare.
In New York and Florida, a majority of households headed by
immigrants and noncitizens are on welfare. Overall, about 63 percent of
immigrant households use welfare while only 35 percent of native-born households
use welfare.
President Trump’s administration is looking to soon implement a
policy that protects American taxpayers’ dollars from funding
the mass importation of welfare-dependent foreign nationals by enforcing a
“public charge” rule whereby legal immigrants would be less likely to secure a
permanent residency in the U.S. if they have used any forms of welfare in the
past, including using Obamacare, food stamps, and public housing.
The immigration controls would be a boon for American taxpayers
in the form of an annual $57.4 billion tax cut — the amount taxpayers spend every year on paying
for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation
of 1.5 million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants.
As Breitbart News reported, the majority
of the more than 1.5 million foreign nationals entering the country every year use about 57
percent more food stamps than the average native-born American
household. Overall, immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash
welfare than American citizen households and 44 percent more in Medicaid
dollars. This straining of public services by a booming 44 million foreign-born
population translates to the average immigrant household costing American
taxpayers $6,234 in federal
welfare.
NON-CITIZEN HOUSEHOLDS 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
Almost
2 out of 3 non-citizen households in the United States receive some form of
welfare, according to a report released by the Center for Immigration Studies
(CIS).
The
report, released Dec. 2, found 63 percent of non-citizen households in the
United States tap at least one welfare program, compared with 35 percent of
native households. The findings are based on the Census Bureau’s latest 2014
Survey of Income and Program Participation.
Non-citizen
households are using welfare food programs and Medicaid at twice the rate of
native households, the study found. There are a total of 4.68 million
non-citizen households receiving some form of welfare and the numbers don’t
improve over time. For non-citizens who remain in the country for more than 10
years, the percentage of welfare recipients rises to 70 percent.
In
this study, non-citizens are defined as long-term temporary visitors, such as
guest workers and foreign students, permanent residents who haven’t yet
naturalized (so-called green card holders), and illegal immigrants.
“Of
non-citizens in the Census Bureau data, roughly half are in the country
illegally,” the CIS estimates.
The
new analysis supports President Donald Trump’s worry that immigrants—both legal
and illegal—impose tremendous fiscal costs on the nation.
Legal
immigrants are initially barred from many, but not all, welfare programs; after
a period of time in the United States, they are able to qualify. Today, most
legal immigrants have lived in the U.S. long enough to qualify for many welfare
programs. Some states provide welfare to new immigrants independent of the
federal government.
The
biggest avenue non-citizens use to access welfare is through their children.
“Non-citizens
(including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their
U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare
eligibility at birth,” the CIS notes.
Although
a number of programs were examined in the report, no single program accounts
for the discrepancy in the use of welfare programs between citizens and
non-citizens. For example, the CIS said when “not counting school lunch and
breakfast, welfare use is still 61 percent for non-citizen households, compared
with 33 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 55 percent
for immigrants compared with 30 percent for natives.”
The
CIS report suggests that a lack of education is the primary cause of
immigrants’ high rate of welfare use.
“A
much larger share of non-citizens have [a] modest level of education,” CIS
says, and therefore “they often earn low wages and qualify for welfare at
higher rates.”
To
support this claim, the CIS said 58 percent of all non-citizen households are
headed by immigrants with no more than a high school education, compared with
36 percent of native households. Of these non-citizen households with no more
than a high school education, 81 percent access one or more welfare programs,
versus only 28 percent of non-citizen households headed by a college graduate.
In
an effort to reduce the rate of welfare use among future immigrants, the Trump
administration has issued new “public charge” laws. These laws expand the list
of programs that are considered welfare, so that receiving these benefits may
prevent prospective immigrants from receiving a green card. However, these
changes “do not include all the benefits that non-citizens receive on behalf of
their children and many welfare programs are not included in the new rules,”
according to CIS.
The
CIS recommends using education levels and potential future income to determine
the likelihood of future welfare use for potential green-card applicants, to
reduce welfare use among non-citizens.
It Pays to
be Illegal in California
It certainly is a good time to be an illegal alien in
California. Democratic State Sen. Ricardo Lara last week pitched a bill to
permit illegal immigrants to serve on all state and local boards and
commissions. This week, lawmakers unveiled a $1 billion health care plan that would include spending $250 million to extend
health care coverage to all illegal alien adults.
“Currently, undocumented adults are explicitly and unjustly
locked out of healthcare due to their immigration status. In a matter of weeks,
California legislators will have a decisive opportunity to reverse that cruel
and counterproductive fact,” Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula said in
Monday’s Sacramento Bee.
His legislation, Assembly Bill 2965, would
give as many as 114,000 uninsured illegal aliens access to Medi-Cal programs. A
companion bill has been sponsored by State Sen. Richard Lara.
But that could just be a drop in the bucket. The Democrats’ plan
covers more than 100,000 illegal aliens with annual incomes bless than $25,000,
however an estimated 1.3 million might be eligible based on their earnings.
In addition, it is estimated that 20 percent of those living in
California illegally are uninsured – the $250 million covers just 11 percent.
So, will politicians soon be asking California taxpayers once
again to dip into their pockets to pay for the remaining 9 percent?
Before they ask for more, Democrats have to win the approval of
Gov. Jerry Brown, who cautioned against spending away the state’s surplus when
he introduced his $190
billion budget proposal in January.
Given Brown’s openness to expanding Medi-Cal expansions in
recent years, not to mention his proclivity for blindly supporting any measure
benefitting lawbreaking immigrants, the latest fiscal irresponsibility may win
approval.
And if he takes a pass, the two Democrats most likely to succeed
Brown – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
– favor excessive social spending and
are actively courting illegal immigrant support.
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.
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.
63% of Non-Citizen Households Access
Welfare Programs
Compared to 35% of
native households
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.
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.
13 See Kanin
L. Reese, "An Analysis of the Characteristics of Multiple Program
Participation Using the Survey of Income and Program Participation
(SIPP)" , Census Bureau Working Paper 244, (undated); "Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United
States: 2000", Census Bureau, December 2001, pp. 23-206; and
Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, "The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the
U.S. Taxpayer", Heritage Foundation, 2013.
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.
GAVIN
NEWSOM HEADS TO EL SALVADOR TO AID THE SALVADORIAN INVASION OF THE MEXICAN
WELFARE STATE OF CALIFORNIA… It’s your Democrat Politician at work… FOR
ILLEGALS!
*
*
Last year in fact, that game was going full speed. El
Salvador's remittances hit arecord $5.47 billion. Literally one
out of six Salvadorans now lives in the
U.S., and 680,000 of those make their home in
benefit-rich California. Salvadoran politicians actually campaign for
office in California, owing to the sizable number of Salvadoran voters, many of
whom are here illegally., signaling that there's a lot of work to be had for
the newest (and least likely to be legal) migrants in the states now, most of
which is coming from California.
*
Here come Big Daddy, the California governor, the
gringo who's already laid out a banquet of goodies for Salvadorans
in California, from free health care to free education, to sanctuary state
protections to enable illegals to work, coming there supposedly to find
out how he can offer ... even more goodies to Salvador's uneducated lower
middle classes. The idea of course is to get even more of them to come
over. Big Daddy comes down with the Santa sack full of goodies. MONICA
SHOWALTER
No comments:
Post a Comment