The Blog

2021-

2021-09-04 a
FOREIGN-BORN PARASITES
(Yet another reason to oppose uncontrolled immigration from the Third World: THEY ARE A FINANCIAL BURDEN and will hasten the financial collapse of the welfare state.)

Summary:
ANY WELFARE USE EXCLUDING EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT
Native-Headed Households 32.2%
Households Headed by All Immigrants 49.1%
Households Headed by All Immigrants in the U.S. for Less Than 10 Years 43.5%
Households Headed by All Immigrants in the U.S. for More Than 10 Years 50.2%
Non-Citizen-Headed Households 54.6%
Households Headed by Non-Citizen in U.S. for Less Than 10 Years 40.3%
Households Headed by Non-Citizen in U.S. for More Than 10 Years 61.7%
Naturalized Citizen-Headed Households 45.2%

Welfare Use for Immigrants and Native-Born Households

heavy burden

Analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of the latest data (2018) from the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) shows that welfare use by households headed by immigrants remains high relative to the native-born. The desire to reduce welfare among future immigrants was the primary justification for “public charge” rules issued by the Trump administration that have now been abandoned by the Biden administration. Immigrant advocacy groups were right that many immigrants make heavy use of the welfare system, and the proposed rules might have impacted the ability of some prospective immigrants to receive green cards. The latest SIPP data from 2018 shows immigrant households continue to use welfare at higher rates than native households, though use rates for both groups were lower in 2018 than when we last looked at the data using the 2014 data. In this blog, we use the term “immigrant” to mean the “foreign-born”, which includes all those currently in the country who were not U.S. citizens at birth.

In 2018, 49 percent of households headed by all immigrants — naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal immigrants — used at least one major welfare program, compared to 32 percent of households headed by the native-born.
Among households headed by non-citizens, 55 percent used at least one welfare program. Non-citizens in the SIPP include those in the country legally (e.g. green card holders) and those in the country illegally.
Welfare use dropped somewhat to 45 percent for all immigrant households and to 51 percent for non-citizen households if cash payments from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) are not counted as welfare. This compares to 28 percent for native households excluding the EITC. EITC recipients pay no federal income tax and, like other welfare, it is a means-tested, anti-poverty program, but unlike other programs one has to work to receive it.
Compared to native households, immigrant-headed households had especially high use of Medicaid (33 percent vs. 20 percent for natives) and food programs (31 percent vs. 19 percent for natives).
At 39 percent, non-citizen households’ receipt of both Medicaid and food programs was even higher than for all immigrants and much higher than for the native-born.
Including the EITC, 25 percent of all immigrant-headed households and 27 percent of non-citizen-headed households received cash welfare, compared to 18 percent of native households. If the EITC is not included, then cash receipt by all immigrant and non-citizen households was only slightly higher than that of the native-born.
Welfare use is high for both newly arrived immigrants and long-time U.S. residents. Of households headed by an immigrant who had lived in the United States for 10 years or less, 44 percent used at least one program. Of those in the country more than 10 years, 50 percent accessed one or more programs.
Among households headed by a non-citizen who had lived in the United States for 10 years or less, 40 percent used at least one major program and for those in the country more than 10 years it was 62 percent.
While most new legal immigrants (green card holders) are barred from most welfare programs, as are illegal immigrants and temporary visitors, these restrictions have only a modest impact on immigrant household use rates primarily because 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.
Other factors that tend to lessen the effectiveness of restrictions on immigrant welfare use include: 1) the bar does not apply to all programs, nor does it always apply to non-citizen children; 2) most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify for most programs; 3) naturalized citizens have the same welfare eligibility as the native-born; and 4) some states provide welfare to otherwise ineligible immigrants on their own.
Trying to bar immigrants once they are in the country from accessing welfare is unlikely to be effective. If we wish to avoid high use of welfare by future immigrants, then moving away from the current family-based system to one that selects immigrants who are less likely to use such programs would be more effective. For example, welfare use by immigrants varies significantly by educational attainment, so placing more emphasis on education and skills as selection criteria for prospective immigrants would almost certainly reduce future immigrant welfare use.
As we made clear in our prior analyses (here and here), most households (immigrant- or native-headed) accessing the welfare system have at least one worker present. But, often because of their lower levels of education, immigrants tend to earn lower wages, making a large share eligible to receive means-tested programs.

(read more)

See also:

[...] All that is history. No more moving with caution. See Biden’s record-setting Executive Orders. They are as radical and Marxist as anything ever seen in America’s history. Obama is running the show. He is back to finish the job he started in 2008. Here in Part II, I will explain the actual plan. I learned it at Columbia University from 1979 to 1983. I was Obama’s college classmate at the Ivy League college where Marxism and the destruction of America was taught in every classroom. The plan was called Cloward-Piven, named after a husband-wife team of Columbia professors.

Cloward and Piven created the perfect Marxist plan: get every American possible on welfare and other government handout programs, in order to overwhelm the system, bring the national debt to levels never imagined, bankrupt America, and bring business owners to their knees when the economy collapses. Then you’ve got a socialist country. I recognize exactly what’s happening today in America with Biden as PINO (president in name only). Obama is running the show and he’s using a modified version of the Cloward and Piven plan from our Columbia days.

Democrats (aka socialists and Marxists) tried to get everyone on welfare for the past 38 years since Obama and I graduated Columbia. They came close, but they never could never quite overwhelm and collapse the system. The success of capitalism, Reagan and Trump got in the way.

But now Obama has the modified the plan. He is going to use the next four years to open the borders and MAFA (Make America Foreign Again). This is a modified version of Cloward-Piven. If you can’t get every American on welfare, then change the composition of America. (source)

______________________

Permission is hereby granted to any and all to copy and paste any entry on this page and convey it electronically along with its URL,
______________________