1

Trump Ending Welfare-Dependent Immigration, Saving Taxpayers Billions

2 comments, 75 views, posted 4:11 pm 12/08/2019 in Politics by REALITY
REALITY has 22205 posts, 8444 threads, 1451 points, location: Don’t believe what I post - Research what I post.
A tormented man.

President Trump is set to save American taxpayers billions of dollars as his administration announces a new rule on Monday that will essentially ban welfare-dependent legal immigrants from permanently resettling in the United States.

A new regulation set to be published by the Trump administration will ensure that 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 subsidized healthcare services, food stamps, and public housing.

The regulation will 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.

The National Academies of Science released a report two years ago, noting that state and local American taxpayers are billed about $1,600 each year per immigrant to pay for their welfare, where immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households.

A recent Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) study notes that about 63 percent of noncitizen households in the U.S. use at least one form of taxpayer-funded welfare, while only about 35 percent of native-born American households are on welfare. This means that noncitizen households use nearly twice as much welfare as native-born American households.

In California — with the largest noncitizen population in the country at almost 11 million or nearly 30 percent of the state’s total population — more than seven-in-ten, or 72 percent, of households headed by noncitizens are on at least one form of welfare. Compare that to the findings that only about seven-in-twenty, or 35 percent, of native-born households in California are on welfare.

(Center for Immigration Studies)

Preventing Americans from being forced to foot the bill for welfare for newly arrived legal immigrants is hugely popular among U.S. voters. A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted in 2017 revealed that more than six-in-ten voters, or 62 percent, said they would support a plan that bans legal immigrants from receiving welfare for at least the first five years of their residency in the country. Roughly 67 percent of swing voters and nearly 60 percent of black Americans said they would support such a plan.

Another 76 percent of U.S. voters said welfare users should be mandated to prove that they are not in the country illegally before being allowed to obtain public benefits, including 74 percent of black Americans, 77 percent of swing voters, and 63 percent of Democrat voters.

Currently, there is an estimated record high of 44.5 million foreign-born residents living in the U.S. This is nearly quadruple the immigrant population in 2000. The vast majority of those arriving in the country every year are low-skilled legal immigrants who compete against working and middle-class Americans for jobs.

Comments

2
8:45 pm 12/08/2019

griffin

breitbart, lol. I can't believe it's not real, ha ha.

https://www.cato.org/blog/immigrants-their-children-use-less-welfare-third-higher-generation-americans

Immigrants and Their Children Use Less Welfare than Third-and-Higher Generation Americans
By ALEX NOWRASTEH and Robert Orr SHARE

A consistent criticism of Cato’s immigration-welfare research is that we compare the welfare consumption of all immigrants to all natives. Our method means that we consider the U.S.-born children of immigrants as natives, even when they reside in a household with foreign-born parents. Our critics contend that this undercounts immigrant welfare consumption because those children would not exist here without the immigrants coming in the first place. Thus, they claim, the welfare consumption of the U.S.-born children of immigrants should be combined with that of their immigrant parents in order to produce an accurate total assessment of immigrant welfare costs.

However, other researchers who combine first and second generation welfare-use do not combine these generations correctly. They use the Current Population Survey (CPS) data to measure immigrant household welfare use rates and benefit levels that includes the U.S.-born children of immigrants who live in the household, but they exclude tens of millions of U.S.-born children of immigrants who do not live in their parent’s households. Thus, counting only the children in the immigrant households produces a limited and biased estimate of first and second-generation welfare costs because the vast bulk of means-tested welfare targets households with children. If the second-generation must be included at all, a better approach would be to include second-generation adults as well.

Robert VerBruggen at National Review convinced us to estimate the welfare consumption levels and use rates for immigrants and their children of all ages (the first and second generations) relative to Americans in the third-and-higher generations in 2016. We initially intended to look only at immigrants who arrived in 1968 or later, which is the year that the Immigration Act of 1965 went into effect, but we were unable to limit the CPS sample and their children so precisely. We were also unable to estimate the welfare use rates or benefit levels for Medicaid or Medicare because of myriad data limitations. Figure 1 shows the result of the welfare use rates multiplied by the benefit levels for each generational group for four welfare and entitlement programs. This produces an average per capita welfare cost for each group for each program that combines adults and children.

People in the first and second generations consume an average of 33 percent fewer welfare benefits, per capita, than native-born Americans who are in the third-and-higher generations for these four programs (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Per Capita Welfare Costs by Program for Immigrants and Their Children Relative to Third-and-Higher Generation Americans, 2016

Source: Authors’ analysis of the 2017 Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey.

We did not adjust Figure 1 for program eligibility. Only counting those aged 65 and above for Social Security means that each person in the first and second generations costs 17 percent less, on average, than each person in the third-and-higher generations.

Attributing the cost of welfare consumed by the entire second-generation to immigrants returns results that are similar to our previous findings. Immigrants, whether one includes their U.S.-born children or not, consume fewer welfare and entitlement benefits than native-born Americans in the third-and-higher generations.


More here: https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates

And again:https://4thworldmovement.org/immigrants-come-use-welfare/


1
5:31 am 13/08/2019

Quaektem

Quote by griffin:
Immigrants and Their Children Use Less Welfare than Third-and-Higher Generation Americans



That they use any at all is an issue.

My ancestors were all ineligible for welfare when they came, in fact some had to find a sponsor who would agree to support them if they needed a hand-out! The idea that you can come here with a green card and then collect welfare/food stamps/WIC is absurd. Try pulling that stunt with any other country on the planet, especially as an American.

Add Comment

via teoti, or register to add a comment!