On 3/11/19 2:31 PM, kI7Na⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛lnArT wrote:
D-FENS wrote on 3/11/2019 2:53 PM:
White House officials have floated two immigration deals in the last month: One that would give amnesty to nearly two million illegal aliens
They are not "illegal aliens". In official legalese, they are "undocumented immigrants".
They are not "illegal" as you have intentionally mislabeled, <snip>
"Undocumented Immigrant" Is a Made-Up Term That Ignores the Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kl6q_9qZOs
Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.
— Proverbs 31:8-9
Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the Lord will take up their case and will exact life for life.
— Proverbs 22:22-23
A generous person will prosper; whoever refreshes others will be refreshed.— Proverbs 11:25
It is a sin to despise one’s neighbor, but blessed is the one who is kind to the needy.
— Proverbs 14:21
Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.
— Proverbs 14:31
Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward them for what they have done.
— Proverbs 19:17
The generous will themselves be blessed, for they share their food with the poor.
— Proverbs 22:9
Those who give to the poor will lack nothing, but those who close their eyes to them receive many curses.
— Proverbs 28:27
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 23:25:56 -0400, "NHpSY⚛← ╬ 𝑴𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒚 𝑾𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒆 ╬ →⚛fqkVF" wrote:What you called "illegal aliens" are actually "undocumented immigrant" seeking asylum in the US. You may call them "asylum seekers" if you so prefer.How about we call them 'invaders'?
Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.
— Proverbs 31:8-9
Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the Lord will take up their case and will exact life for life.
— Proverbs 22:22-23
A generous person will prosper; whoever refreshes others will be refreshed.— Proverbs 11:25
It is a sin to despise one’s neighbor, but blessed is the one who is kind to the needy.
— Proverbs 14:21
Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.
— Proverbs 14:31
Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward them for what they have done.
— Proverbs 19:17
The generous will themselves be blessed, for they share their food with the poor.
— Proverbs 22:9
Those who give to the poor will lack nothing, but those who close their eyes to them receive many curses.
— Proverbs 28:27
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kl6q_9qZOs
Immigrants are less likely than native-born Americans to use welfare programs and don’t even qualify for welfare benefits in most cases. Not only don’t immigrants come to the US to use welfare, but in many cases potential immigrants must prove their financial independence before even qualifying for a visa, making them far less likely to need support than native-born Americans.
This is a myth that has been getting a lot of attention lately, with some of the highest elected officials in the land arguing that we must curb legal immigration so that immigrants can’t, in the words of Donald Trump, “Come in and just immediately go sign up for welfare.” [1]
False claims like that one are based on studies which have shown that a majority of “immigrant households” use some kind of social welfare program – but these claims are based on a statistical sleight of hand that misrepresents reality.
The law on immigration and welfare is clear: When a person becomes a legal permanent resident of the United States, they are required to pay taxes but they are ineligible to receive almost any welfare benefits until they have resided in the country for at least five years [2].
So, what is meant by an “immigrant household” then? Well, according to the census a household is a group of people living together under the same roof. A household is labeled an “immigrant” household if the “head of household” is an immigrant – even if everyone else in the household is a citizen. Moreover, a “head of household” is simply whoever happens to respond when the census taker comes and knocks on the door, no matter if they are the primary earner for the family.
What does this mean for this debate? Imagine then a family of four where one parent is an immigrant but the other parent and both children are citizens. And let’s say they rent out their basement to a local college student who is also a citizen. For census purposes, the household consist of five people. Even though four of them are citizens, if the one non-citizen opens the door when the census bureau comes, it is labeled an immigrant household. This means that if the student in the basement is using some kind of social program, even if the other adults in the household are billionaires, this is counted in census data as an immigrant household using benefits.
This situation is actually surprisingly common. Many immigrants have children who are citizens – and citizens are legally able to apply to any program in our social safety net. A child who is a citizen might qualify to receive Medicare, for instance, while their parents do not. In a study looking at households, this would be counted as an immigrant household (because of the parents) receiving a benefit (because of the kids) – despite the fact that, again, no non-citizen is actually receiving government assistance.
So using “households” instead of “individuals” lets opponents to legal immigration make dramatic claims about immigrant welfare use.
Perhaps most significant though, even playing the household vs. individual game doesn’t justify their most grandiose findings. An analysis by the Libertarian think tank The Cato Institute found that using the same numbers when you control for socioeconomic factors, “Overall, immigrant households in poverty consume less welfare than native [U.S.-born] households in poverty.” [emphasis added] [4]
Going farther, the Cato Institute broke down the numbers available by individuals in a report titled, (SPOILER ALERT!) “Poor Immigrants Use Public Benefits at a Lower Rate than Poor Native-Born Citizens.”
The study found that, you guessed it, “Low-income immigrants use public benefits […] at a lower rate than low-income native-born citizens.” [5] Adult low-income immigrants used Medicaid at a lower rate (20% vs. 25%) than citizens, and their children were less likely to use CHIP (49% vs. 65%) or SNAP (33% vs. 51%). Moreover, even when immigrants are qualified and enrolled, their cost per person is lower than that for citizens. In the case of Medicaid, for instance, low-income immigrant adults cost 42% less per person than citizens. In the case of CHIP, low-income immigrant children cost 66% less per person than citizens. [5]
And then lastly, we have to point out that this whole discussion focuses on documented immigrants, who are eligible after five years to apply for welfare programs. Undocumented immigrants never have this right unless they change their immigration status, which means that despite the fact that undocumented immigrants pay close to a billion dollars in taxes each year, they never have the right to benefit from the system they help support [3].
There is a deeper question that we should be asking here though: If immigrants pay taxes, and those taxes contribute to our social safety net, isn’t it reasonable that they should be able to use that safety net when times get tough? Why does this idea create such a backlash?
The answer is that what is really going on here is yet another example of anti-poor bias in our country’s political discourse. When a politician says immigrants are “on welfare,” what they are really saying is that immigrants are not good Americans. They are seen as “takers” not “makers.” They are judged to be lazy, dishonest, frauds & cheats. Being “on welfare” is something someone is supposed to be ashamed of. It is a moral failing and anyone needing this help for a period of time is considered a drain on our country’s resources.
A quick survey of the myriad fact-checking sites that have debunked this false claim about immigrants reveals though that none of them have addressed this deeper point. Liberal or libertarian, voices across the political spectrum have risen to defend the honor of immigrants in the face of a blatantly false statement. The fact that none of those same voices have asked the more basic question – So what if a taxpayer uses the benefits they pay for? – is a sign of how deep that anti-poor bias is rooted across the political spectrum.
That is the real tragedy of this myth.
On 3/15/19 10:43 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 00:45:00 +0000, Anonymous Reactionary
<anon...@internet.everywhere> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 17:38:52 -0400, "7R1YI?? ? ??????
??????? ? ??OunHq" wrote:
If you expedite the paperwork, then they won't be "undocumented"
anymore. Most of them want to work and contribute. They are in no way a
burden to the system.
Most immigrants are on welfare.
A Cato Institute study:
"We found that immigrants use 39 percent fewer welfare and
entitlements benefits per person than native-born Americans.
Immigrants are less likely to use the individual programs in most
cases and, when they do, the benefits they receive tend to be
smaller."
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-blame-immigrants-bloated-welfare-state
Social Security is not an "entitlement" program as the "commentary" falsely states. Immigrants who have not paid into Social Security will obviously not be eligible to receive Social Security retirement payments, since they had not paid into the fund. I would not be surprised if the Cato Institute deliberately blurs the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens in order to, figuratively, put lipstick on a pig. As far as I'm concerned, the statement that "immigrants use 39 percent fewer welfare and entitlements benefits per person than native-born Americans" is hardly comforting. Let's see the actual numbers rather than "39 percent fewer." If immigrants make up, say, 8 percent of the total population and "use 39 percent fewer welfare and entitlement benefits" than native born Americans, the true dollar figures must be shocking.