Europe and Muslim Immigrants

[fredtoast]

(03-16-2016, 06:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The Financial Costs of Illegal Immigration

The average illegal immigrant is 34 years old. If he receives amnesty, he will receive government benefits for 50 years. Some amnesty proposals suggest restricting benefit access for the first 13 years after amnesty, but that limit would have little impact on long-term costs. Over the course of a lifetime, 11.5 million illegal immigrants granted amnesty would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits after paying just $3.1 trillion in taxes.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25056

This study defines "government benefits" to in include the cost of roads, fire protection, police protection, etc.
I really don't see us cutting the cost of firefighting and building roads if we get rid of all immigrants.

Best I can tell it also assumes that not a single immigrant will earn more than a person with no high school education.

Lot of number twisting to come up with an imaginary number.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-17-2016, 02:10 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Just more proof that you live in an echo chamber that does not include any info that contradicts your opinion.

I found it in about 5 seconds, but I guess you would not accept information from the official site of the Department of Healtrh and Hiuman services

I'm sure mike will address the whole post as needed but I wanted to address the bold. Why on earth should we believe anything any department in this administration claims? This administration and its departments have been caught in scandal after scandal and lies on top of lies. If they aren't violating people's civil liberties they are using the IRS to bully citizens. Or telling lies to cover up countless blunders.

Everyone should be taking a hard critical look at anything this government puts out there as fact.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-17-2016, 02:19 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This study defines "government benefits" to in include the cost of roads, fire protection, police protection, etc.
I really don't see us cutting the cost of firefighting and building roads if we get rid of all immigrants.
Best I can tell it also assumes that not a single immigrant will earn more than a person with no high school education.
Lot of number twisting to come up with an imaginary number.

Isn't that your chief talking point when debating the size of government and whether I enjoy it's benefits? So when debating me on gov role you say those are legitimate gov benefits but now they aren't legitimate to use in a study?

And we would cut costs on fireman. less population the less staff we need.

[GMDino]

(03-17-2016, 02:20 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I'm sure mike will address the whole post as needed but I wanted to address the bold.    Why on earth should we believe anything any department in this administration claims?   This administration and its departments have been caught in scandal after scandal and lies on top of lies.    If they aren't violating people's civil liberties they are using the IRS to bully citizens.    Or telling lies to cover up countless blunders.    

Everyone should be taking a hard critical look at anything this government puts out there as fact.

Those are accusations that have not come to fruition.  I would suggest that the stories about them are not true and it is instead part of a "group think" that wants to believe anything bad about this administration no matter what the truth is.

Not to stray to far off, but the administration with the biggest scandals and most convictions was the Reagan administration.

[Benton]

(03-16-2016, 06:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Basically, the majority of households across the country benefitting from publicly-funded welfare programs are headed by immigrants, both legal and illegal. States where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62%), Texas, California and New York with 61% each and Pennsylvania(59%).
 

That's not true. I went to the study and I honestly have no idea where they get their info from. I see what the claim, but it goes against everything I've seen, from US Census data to state data for most states to common sense. You will have people who fall through the cracks, but there's no way the majority of people on welfare are immigrants.

From Huff Po:


But... what about the anchor babies!?

Well, maybe. Lots of the people receiving SNAP benefits are kids. But that includes white kids, black kids, other kids.



Well, still. That's just lazy people. Or...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/28/food-stamp-demographics_n_6771938.html

Well. Crap. Maybe food stamps are mostly white and black people with kids who were working and — for whatever reason — aren't  year or two later.

Quote:The study focused on eight major welfare programs that cost the government $517 billion the year they were examined. They include Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the disabled, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a nutritional program known as Women, Infants and Children (WIC), food stamps, free/reduced school lunch, public housing and health insurance for the poor (Medicaid). Food assistance and Medicaid are the programs most commonly used by illegal immigrants, mainly on behalf of their American-born children who get automatic citizenship.


On the other hand, legal immigrant households take advantage of every available welfare program, according to the study, which attributes it to low education level and resulting low income. The highest rate of welfare recipients come from the Dominican Republic (82 %), Mexico and Guatemala (75%) and Ecuador (70%), according to the report, which says welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents.


Link to original study:
http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011
Companion report to original study
http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households




McNees contacted Judicial Watch after reading documents obtained by JW from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) detailing how the agency is working with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal aliens in the U.S. food stamp program. The effort includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA ensuring that Mexicans in the U.S. don’t need to declare their immigration status to get financial assistance from Uncle Sam.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/04/case-worker-illegal-aliens-got-food-stamps-by-the-vanload/


The Financial Costs of Illegal Immigration

The average illegal immigrant is 34 years old. If he receives amnesty, he will receive government benefits for 50 years. Some amnesty proposals suggest restricting benefit access for the first 13 years after amnesty, but that limit would have little impact on long-term costs. Over the course of a lifetime, 11.5 million illegal immigrants granted amnesty would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits after paying just $3.1 trillion in taxes.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25056

Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare
7:21 p.m. EDT September 2, 2015

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.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

Much of this is wildly distorted facts.

Average age is skewed because of the high number of children involved. But even if you are talking about 15 million people all 36 years of age, it works off the assumption they'll get 50 years of benefits without paying anything into it. That's not any different than vilifying everyone 36 years of age because there's the potential they'll draw 50 years of benefits (thank God I just turned 37 last week, I'm not like the rest of you moochers) without having paid anything into it. And, as has been shown in other links, illegals are paying in more taxes than they receive in benefits (directly anyway).

51%? Even if that is right... so? Around 25% of all U.S. households receive some kind of welfare (food stamps, SSI, etc). But Hispanics (which aren't all from Mexico) only make up 1/6th of the population (roughly). And that 25% goes up considerably once you start lumping in tax breaks (also known as welfare for businesses and wealthy individuals).


What's kind of funny (in a sad way) was this is nearly the exact same misinformation circulating 10-15 years ago to show why black people were bad (even though, likewise, back then it was largely white people with kids using social aide programs, but people would jump up and down about the proportions and possibilities).

[fredtoast]

(03-17-2016, 02:20 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I'm sure mike will address the whole post as needed but I wanted to address the bold.    Why on earth should we believe anything any department in this administration claims?

So the Department of Health and Human Services is not a valid information source about the rules promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services?



What site do you think would be a better source for this info?   Breitbart?

[GMDino]

Let's say 11 million more people go immediately on welfare.  Food stamps.  The whole works.

The program still costs less than what we give to corporations.  And is tiny slice of the budget pie overall.

This site seems to have numbers only up to 2009 so I'm sure there are more people on today since the recession.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/



This article is a couple weeks old and breaks it down by percentage and then what those percentages cover.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

Quote:Safety net programs:

This category includes all programs in the income security function (600) except those that fall in the following two subfunctions: federal employees’ retirement and disability (602) and general retirement and disability insurance (601).  The latter contains the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation and also covers programs that provide pension and disability benefits to certain small groups of private-sector workers

• Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies: Four health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace subsidies — together accounted for 25 percent of the budget in 2015, or $938 billion.  Nearly two-thirds of this amount, or $546 billion, went to Medicare, which provides health coverage to around 55 million people who are over age 65 or have disabilities. The rest of this category funds Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA subsidy and exchange costs.  In a typical month, Medicaid and CHIP provide health care or long-term care to about 72 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities. (Both Medicaid and CHIP require matching payments from the states.)  In 2015, 8 million of the 11 million people enrolled in health insurance exchanges received ACA subsidies, at an estimated cost of about $28 billion.
  

[Rotobeast]

Considering my proposed scenario, what if the illegals who were going through the process were afforded services on a sliding scale that were determined by the year's they've paid into the system ? Say 10 years for 100% ?

[Benton]

(03-17-2016, 02:35 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Considering my proposed scenario, what if the illegals who were going through the process were afforded services on a sliding scale that were determined by the year's they've paid into the system ? Say 10 years for 100% ?

By services, do you mean social aid (food stamps, WIC, etc)?

If so, I don't think that would work. Social aid isn't supposed to be free stuff for the sake of free stuff. It's supposed to help people who need it. That's already scaled. If you've got two adults and four kids in a household, you're going to get more SNAP funds than someone with just them and a kid. If you say 'it takes X to feed a family of four' and then give them S because dad is an illegal immigrant, that's a pretty big difference (because really, dad isn't supposed to get anything being here illegally and the kids are supposed to be getting X).

If you can have 10% or 30% or whatever of the aid and be fine, you don't need that much in the first place.

[Rotobeast]

(03-17-2016, 02:45 PM)Benton Wrote: By services, do you mean social aid (food stamps, WIC, etc)?

If so, I don't think that would work. Social aid isn't supposed to be free stuff for the sake of free stuff. It's supposed to help people who need it. That's already scaled. If you've got two adults and four kids in a household, you're going to get more SNAP funds than someone with just them and a kid. If you say 'it takes X to feed a family of four' and then give them S because dad is an illegal immigrant, that's a pretty big difference (because really, dad isn't supposed to get anything being here illegally and the kids are supposed to be getting X).

If you can have 10% or 30% or whatever of the aid and be fine, you don't need that much in the first place.

I do mean those and medical services.
However (and I should have specified earlier) the percentage to be recouped could come from any monies that would  have otherwise  been returned on income tax or spread out across a lengthy repayment program.
Again, this is only for the people who  had entered illegally. We are interested in making them productive  citizens, without rewarding the initial illegal behavior.
I'm sure it seems a little harsh to some, but I'm sure it's  better than deportation.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-17-2016, 10:55 AM)Benton Wrote: That's not true. I went to the study and I honestly have no idea where they get their info from. I see what the claim, but it goes against everything I've seen, from US Census data to state data for most states to common sense. You will have people who fall through the cracks, but there's no way the majority of people on welfare are immigrants.

From Huff Po:


But... what about the anchor babies!?

Well, maybe. Lots of the people receiving SNAP benefits are kids. But that includes white kids, black kids, other kids

Well, still. That's just lazy people. Or...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/28/food-stamp-demographics_n_6771938.html

Well. Crap. Maybe food stamps are mostly white and black people with kids who were working and — for whatever reason — aren't  year or two later.



Much of this is wildly distorted facts.

Whites should be getting the most.

10 Million Americans Switched Their Race or Ethnicity for the Census
http://time.com/3087649/census-race-ethnicity-report/


Hispanic is not really a race it's an ethnicity, so most Hispanics will chose the race: White.
Heck, even Marco Rubio (and probably Ted Cruz) checks "White". Same with Anthony Quinn, Andy Garcia, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Charlie Sheen, they all check "white" too.

The reason they are doing this is because there is White Hispanic, Black Hispanic, Asian Hispanic and Hispanics of Indigenous descent. So to them, they are White, so because of that, your statistics will be skewed if you are actually trying to separate the two.

Now I'll get back to you as soon as I can find out how many anchor babies are getting welfare.

[Benton]

(03-17-2016, 03:41 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I do mean those and medical services.
However (and I should have specified earlier) the percentage to be recouped could come from any monies that would  have otherwise  been returned on income tax or spread out across a lengthy repayment program.
Again, this is only for the people who  had entered illegally. We are interested in making them productive  citizens, without rewarding the initial illegal behavior.
I'm sure it seems a little harsh to some, but I'm sure it's  better than deportation.

interesting idea. I don't think I'dgo for it, but it is an interesting thought.

[Benton]

(03-17-2016, 04:41 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Whites should be getting the most.

10 Million Americans Switched Their Race or Ethnicity for the Census
http://time.com/3087649/census-race-ethnicity-report/


Hispanic is not really a race it's an ethnicity, so most Hispanics will chose the race: White.
Heck, even Marco Rubio (and probably Ted Cruz) checks "White". Same with Anthony Quinn, Andy Garcia, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Charlie Sheen, they all check "white" too.

The reason they are doing this is because there is White Hispanic, Black Hispanic, Asian Hispanic and Hispanics of Indigenous descent. So to them, they are White, so because of that, your statistics will be skewed if you are actually trying to separate the two.

Now I'll get back to you as soon as I can find out how many anchor babies are getting welfare.

doesn't change my opinion much, but that is an interesting subject.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-16-2016, 06:53 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/04/most-illegal-immigrant-families-collect-welfare/

The results, published this month in a lengthy report, are hardly surprising. Basically, the majority of households across the country benefitting from publicly-funded welfare programs are headed by immigrants, both legal and illegal. States where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62%), Texas, California and New York with 61% each and Pennsylvania(59%).

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.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigrant-welfare-use-report/71517072/

(03-17-2016, 02:15 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Basically this is a complete lie.

Only a very small percentage of households across the country benefiting from publicly-funded welfare programs are headed by immigrants, either legal or illegal.

Someone does not know how to read the study that was cited.

(03-17-2016, 10:55 AM)Benton Wrote: That's not true. I went to the study and I honestly have no idea where they get their info from. I see what the claim, but it goes against everything I've seen, from US Census data to state data for most states to common sense. You will have people who fall through the cracks, but there's no way the majority of people on welfare are immigrants.

From Huff Po:


But... what about the anchor babies!?

Well, maybe. Lots of the people receiving SNAP benefits are kids. But that includes white kids, black kids, other kids.


51%? Even if that is right... so? Around 25% of all U.S. households receive some kind of welfare (food stamps, SSI, etc). But Hispanics (which aren't all from Mexico) only make up 1/6th of the population (roughly). And that 25% goes up considerably once you start lumping in tax breaks (also known as welfare for businesses and wealthy individuals).

unfortunately, we will have to continue the conversation at a later time.
I'll be out of town for the next month.


Just some numbers to mess with.
I already posted that there was about 4.9 million anchor babies in the US whose parents are illegal.

If there is about 11.1 million illegals in the US, just taking the 4.9 million (kids parents are here right and the kids don't count as illegals) and dividing it by the 11.1 million will give you 44% of illegals benefiting from various programs just from having an Anchor baby here.

Now we all know that not each family will have just 1 parent, so that $ rises if there is more than 1 parent piggybacking off of the benefits that their anchor babies are getting. So I don't see how 51% is that far fetched of a number. the difference between 44% and 51% is 800k. That's not unrealistic to say that about 1 out of 5 anchor babies has 2 parents, and that would put us at the 51%. I would suspect that more would have 2 parents.

Anyways, I don't get it why some of you would want to pay more in taxes to help people, but when we talk about making things like the ACA into a socialist program where all Americans will be covered and/or free college for all UCS's, so many of you are totally against those. It just blows my mind. Isn't that the same as paying more to help others?

And even YOU would benefit from it, you wouldn't have to worry if you were out of a job, you and your entire family would still be covered, your job wouldn't have to worry about making a plan available to you, it'd be taken care of already. All that they'd need to do is pay your wages and tax you appropriately. To me, these would help EVERY USC, and is something that would benefit us as a Nation in the long run. You wouldn't have to worry about saving up for college for your kids. We could actually afford to have more kids.

[fredtoast]

(03-22-2016, 12:35 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: If there is about 11.1 million illegals in the US, just taking the 4.9 million (kids parents are here right and the kids don't count as illegals) and dividing it by the 11.1 million will give you 44% of illegals benefiting from various programs just from having an Anchor baby here.

Now we all know that not each family will have just 1 parent, so that $ rises if there is more than 1 parent piggybacking off of the benefits that their anchor babies are getting. So I don't see how 51% is that far fetched of a number. the difference between 44% and 51% is 800k. That's not unrealistic to say that about 1 out of 5 anchor babies has 2 parents, and that would put us at the 51%. I would suspect that more would have 2 parents.

I think you are missing the point.

51% of immigrants receiving assistance is no where close to a majority of ALL recipients of assistance.

[Benton]

(03-22-2016, 12:35 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: unfortunately, we will have to continue the conversation at a later time.
I'll be out of town for the next month.


Just some numbers to mess with.
I already posted that there was about 4.9 million anchor babies in the US whose parents are illegal.

If there is about 11.1 million illegals in the US, just taking the 4.9 million (kids parents are here right and the kids don't count as illegals) and dividing it by the 11.1 million will give you 44% of illegals benefiting from various programs just from having an Anchor baby here.

Now we all know that not each family will have just 1 parent, so that $ rises if there is more than 1 parent piggybacking off of the benefits that their anchor babies are getting. So I don't see how 51% is that far fetched of a number. the difference between 44% and 51% is 800k. That's not unrealistic to say that about 1 out of 5 anchor babies has 2 parents, and that would put us at the 51%. I would suspect that more would have 2 parents.

Anyways, I don't get it why some of you would want to pay more in taxes to help people, but when we talk about making things like the ACA into a socialist program where all Americans will be covered and/or free college for all UCS's, so many of you are totally against those. It just blows my mind. Isn't that the same as paying more to help others?

And even YOU would benefit from it, you wouldn't have to worry if you were out of a job, you and your entire family would still be covered, your job wouldn't have to worry about making a plan available to you, it'd be taken care of already. All that they'd need to do is pay your wages and tax you appropriately. To me, these would help EVERY USC, and is something that would benefit us as a Nation in the long run. You wouldn't have to worry about saving up for college for your kids. We could actually afford to have more kids.

(03-23-2016, 04:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think you are missing the point.

51% of immigrants receiving assistance is no where close to a majority of ALL recipients of assistance.

What Fred said, plus, I'm not sure how many programs extend to illegal parents via their off-spring. They aren't getting unemployment or the like, although they would indirectly benefit from SNAP or WIC.