BY ALAN GOMEZ
More than half of the nation’s immigrants receive some kind of government welfare, a figure that’s far higher than the native-born population’s, according to a report to be released Wednesday.
About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households, according to the report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for lower levels of immigration.
Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born.
The findings are sure to fuel debate on the presidential campaign trail as Republican candidates focus on changing the nation’s immigration laws, from calls for mass deportations to ending birthright citizenship.
Steven Camarota, director of research at the center and author of the report, said that’s a much-needed conversation to make the country’s immigration system more “selective.”
“This should not be understood as some kind of defect or moral failing on the part of immigrants,” Camarota said about the findings. “Rather, what it represents is a system that allows a lot of less-educated immigrants to settle in the country, who then earn modest wages and are eligible for a very generous welfare system.”
Linda Chavez agrees with Camarota that the country’s welfare system is too large and too costly. But Chavez, a self-professed conservative who worked in President Reagan’s administration, said it’s irresponsible to say immigrants are taking advantage of the country’s welfare system any more than native-born Americans.
Chavez said today’s immigrants, like all other immigrant waves in the country’s history, start off poorer and have lower levels of education, making it unfair to compare their welfare use to the long-established native-born population. She said immigrants have larger households, making it more likely that one person in that household will receive some kind of welfare benefit. And she said many benefits counted in the study are going to U.S.-born children of immigrants, skewing the findings even more.
“When you take all of those issues into account, (the report) is less worrisome,” she said.
Chavez, president of the Becoming American Institute, a conservative group that advocates for higher levels of legal immigration to reduce illegal immigration, said politicians should be careful about using the data. Rather than focus on the fact that immigrants are initially more dependent on welfare than the U.S.-born, she said they should focus on studies that show what happens to the children of those immigrants.
“These kids who get subsidized school lunches today will go on to graduate high school … will go on to college and move up to the middle class of America,” Chavez said. “Every time we have a nativist backlash in our history, we forget that we see immigrants change very rapidly in the second generation.”
The center’s report is based on 2012 data from the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation. It includes immigrants who have become naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, those on short-term visas and undocumented immigrants.
Camarota said one of the most shocking findings from the report was the high number of native-born Americans also on welfare. About 76% of immigrant households with children are on welfare, but so are 52% of native-born households with children.
“Most people have a sense that if you were to work for $10 an hour, 40 hours a week, you couldn’t be receiving welfare, could you? You couldn’t be living in public housing, could you?” he said. “The answer is yes, you can. That’s one of the most surprising things about this study.”
Other findings in the report:
- Immigrants are more likely to be working than their native-born neighbors. The report found that 87% of immigrant households had at least one worker, compared to 76% for native households.
- The majority of immigrants using welfare come from Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean. The use of welfare is lower for immigrants from East Asia (32%), Europe (26%) and South Asia (17%).
- Immigrants who have been in the U.S. more than 20 years use welfare less often, but their rates remain higher than native-born households.
When a scared, destitute stranger and his entire family from a foreign country enter your home uninvited and demand you take care of them for the unforeseeable future (like feeding them, housing them, providing their medical care etc.) surely you comply. You must! Because compassion. Wait, you don’t let strangers into your house and provide for them for all of time? RACIST.
The Netherlands have gotten realistic about these “asylum seekers” and how long they can stay free of cost. Why? A number of reasons. Obviously because the Dutch are racists who don’t have hearts and cannot show any kind of goodwill towards these poor people flooding across their borders from Syria and Libya. The other reason is because, well, the Netherlands can’t afford to let foreigners mooch off the government dole. But you won’t see the second reason in the leftist media much. Remember, facts are secondary to feelings.
Prime Minister Mark Rutte has defended the measures, saying it was “crazy” to offer indefinite assistance to those who failed to qualify as refugees.
“We are talking about the group that can go back, whose governments would take them back, but they don’t want to go back,” he said.
In Britain, more than 60 per cent of asylum applications are rejected. Most people then have a right to an appeal, but the majority still receive negative decisions. The cost of then ejecting people forcibly is expensive, leading to accusations that the Government is deliberately making life as difficult as possible for failed asylum seekers to force people to leave.
Of course the UN, who doesn’t let foreigners in their symbolic houses either, has said all of this Netherlands not allowing a free flow of immigrants into their country and mooch off the government stuff, is just wrong. Because, you guessed it… racism. What else?
But the changes have been criticised by charities and the UN itself, whose Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination said the basic needs of migrants should be provided unconditionally.
“As long as they are in the Netherlands, they have to enjoy minimum standards of living,” said Ion Diaconu, who helped write a UN report criticising the Dutch policy proposal.
That’s right. Not giving foreigners free stuff is racist. Remember that when a foreigner breaks down the door to your home and demands asylum.
If you defend your household? Well that’s double-secret racism. Because, tolerance.
BY JULIA HAHN
One out of about every twelve newborns in the United States is an anchor baby, or the U.S.-born child of illegal migrants, according to a Pew Research Center study.
This means that one anchor baby is delivered every 93 seconds, based on the 2008 censusdata analyzed by the Pew.
The huge number of foreign children born on U.S. soil– roughly 340,000 per year— is also an economic imposition on Americans, who pay taxes to help raise, feed, and educate those children of illegal migrants.
Eventually, those 340,000 U.S.-born foreign children can join the U.S. workforce and compete for wages against the roughly four million children of U.S. parents that enter the slow-growing U.S. economy each year.
Only 28 percent of likely U.S. voters believe that children born to illegal migrants in this country should automatically be American citizens, according to a 2011 Rasmussen Reports survey. In fact, the proposal is so unpopular that even Jeb Bush, who favors large-scale immigration, has criticized pregnant foreigners who grab citizenship for their kids by flying into the country posing as tourists. Bush described the practice as “fraud,” and asserted that, “Frankly, it’s more related to Asian people coming into our country — having children in that organized effort, taking advantage of a noble concept, which is birthright citizenship”
The growing industry of “birth tourism” is so large that even California’s government recently cracked down on the illegal — but rarely suppressed— trade.
The federal government currently grants automatic citizenship to all U.S.-born children of illegal migrants based upon what experts say is a flawed interpretation of the 14th amendment. This interpretation is backed by progressive political advocates and wealthy business interests, and it allows a pregnant foreigner to win citizenship — and myriad financial benefits — even when laws, legislators and voters oppose her entry into the nation.
The rewards to the mother and father are huge. The mother, for example, can collect federal welfare on behalf of the child, and the adult child – as a U.S. citizen – will eventually be able to win a green card for his or her parents, despite their prior illegal entry into the United States.
As National Review writes:
71 percent of illegal-alien headed households with children received some sort of welfare in 2009, compared with 39 percent of native-headed houses with children. Illegal immigrants generally access welfare programs through their U.S.-born children, to whom government assistance is guaranteed. Additionally, U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are entitled to American public schools, health care, and more, even though illegal-alien households rarely pay taxes.
The cost of K-12 public school alone for a U.S.-born child of illegal migrants is, at a minimum, around $160,000 (using the average cost $12,300 per pupil per year). Additionally, under universities’ system of racial preferences, anchor babies will get bonus SAT and GPA points when they apply to college. Many corporations will continue this benefits program when considering their job applications as well.
and CongressmanRep. Steve King (R-IA) 77%
have introduced bills that would correct this misapplication of the 14th amendment by ensuring citizenship is only granted to a child that has at least one parent who is either a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident. Presidential candidate Donald Trump has also issued a plan that would restrict this appropriation of U.S. citizenship.But the presidential candidates favored by wealthy donors,
and Jeb Bush, have both argued that the United States should continue this controversial application of the 14th amendment that allows foreign migrants to appropriate U.S. citizenship for their children.Marco Rubio co-authored the Senate Gang of Eight bill, which won the endorsement of La Raza and would substantially increase family chain migration.
When asked by CNBC why he defends this unpopular application of the 14th amendment, Rubio explained that he supports it because U.S.-born foreign children “are people”:
“Those are human beings and ultimately they are people, we’re not just statistics, they’re humans with stories,” Rubio said.