• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.
In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...on-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,151
Reaction score
12,531
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
So according to this.. if a kid gets a free school lunch then the whole family are on welfare... cool!
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,472
Reaction score
40,667
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So according to this.. if a kid gets a free school lunch then the whole family are on welfare... cool!

Welfare is (too?) often used as a general term to describe any "safety net" (means tested) public assistance received.

The point made is valid, none the less, since the household obviously benefits if any member of it gets public assistance.
 
Last edited:

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,151
Reaction score
12,531
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Welfare is (too?) often used as a general term to describe any "safety net" (means tested) public assistance received.

The point made is valid, none the less, since the household obviously benefits if any member of it gets public assistance.

That is the problem. The definition is wayyyy too wide to have any meaning.

1) EITC... it is a tax credit, hence to get this you need to pay taxes!!!
2) SSI is for handicapped people.. I mean come on.
3) WIC and school lunches.. that is babies and small children.

And then there is subsidized and public housing... rather broad.

They should also add tax breaks for companies and then the numbers would shoot up!
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
22,551
Reaction score
29,456
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Literally the only source the "Washington Examiner" links to is to a "study" from the Center for Immigration Studies, which is a partisan anti-immigration group and they didn't directly reference any of the census data. I know that you did not dig that deep because it confirmed what you already want to believe. If you think this is the truth, show us directly in the census data where this assertion is supported. The trail of evidence in the article does not lead to their stated conclusion.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,472
Reaction score
40,667
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That is the problem. The definition is wayyyy too wide to have any meaning.

1) EITC... it is a tax credit, hence to get this you need to pay taxes!!!
2) SSI is for handicapped people.. I mean come on.
3) WIC and school lunches.. that is babies and small children.

And then there is subsidized and public housing... rather broad.

They should also add tax breaks for companies and then the numbers would shoot up!

The point remains valid because the same categories of public assistance are used for each population sub-group measured. It should not surprise anyone that recently arriving, non-citizen immigrants are less financially secure than those that have been here for much longer.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,151
Reaction score
12,531
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The point remains valid because the same categories of public assistance are used for each population sub-group measured. It should not surprise anyone that recently arriving, non-citizen immigrants are less financially secure than those that have been here for much longer.

The point of the OP is to paint "non-citizens" as welfare cases and promote xenophobia. The organisation that made the report.. states clearly from the start that it is against immigration which automatically sets the alarm clocks ringing.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The point of the OP is to paint "non-citizens" as welfare cases and promote xenophobia. The organisation that made the report.. states clearly from the start that it is against immigration which automatically sets the alarm clocks ringing.

What should alarm you is how little we know about how much illegals cost us, because the most likely reason we dont know is because people in power dont want us to know.
 

SDET

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
1,609
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So according to this.. if a kid gets a free school lunch then the whole family are on welfare... cool!

I'm am as anti-illegal alien as anybody. However, sloppy statistics and manipulated conclusions don't help the cause of those who use them.
 

celticwar17

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
6,540
Reaction score
2,524
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That is the problem. The definition is wayyyy too wide to have any meaning.

1) EITC... it is a tax credit, hence to get this you need to pay taxes!!!
2) SSI is for handicapped people.. I mean come on.
3) WIC and school lunches.. that is babies and small children.

And then there is subsidized and public housing... rather broad.

They should also add tax breaks for companies and then the numbers would shoot up!

How does tax breaks for companies have anything to do with this topic lol?

Company tax breaks are for National strategic economics and government incentives.... something leftists love to do.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,472
Reaction score
40,667
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The point of the OP is to paint "non-citizens" as welfare cases and promote xenophobia. The organisation that made the report.. states clearly from the start that it is against immigration which automatically sets the alarm clocks ringing.

If you disagree with the facts presented then post links to refute them. It appears (at least from the source link below) that Denmark has a similar experince with recent immigrants.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Denmark
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
22,551
Reaction score
29,456
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If you disagree with the facts presented then post links to refute them. It appears (at least from the source link below) that Denmark has a similar experince with recent immigrants.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Denmark

You've missed the point. There's nothing to refute because the assertions weren't based on actual data. As soon as you or anyone else can make a direct connection to some reputable data there will be something to challenge.

Who needs facts or sources when we have your feelings, right?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,472
Reaction score
40,667
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You've missed the point. There's nothing to refute because the assertions weren't based on actual data. As soon as you or anyone else can make a direct connection to some reputable data there will be something to challenge.

Who needs facts or sources when we have your feelings, right?

The article mentioned the 2014 SIPP as being the data source - I did not bother to check it.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The point of the OP is to paint "non-citizens" as welfare cases and promote xenophobia. The organisation that made the report.. states clearly from the start that it is against immigration which automatically sets the alarm clocks ringing.
No promotion of Xenophobia, that's you saying "I haven't a real valid basis for my argument against the OPP, so here's the race card, what do I win".
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,151
Reaction score
12,531
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No promotion of Xenophobia, that's you saying "I haven't a real valid basis for my argument against the OPP, so here's the race card, what do I win".

When you use the categories as you do in the report.. then it is clear xenophobia. Why are "naturalised Americans" a separate category? Are they not Americans? One thing for sure, for many on the right.. they are not, hence the distinction in the report. There are plenty of problems with the methodology in the report.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,151
Reaction score
12,531
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If you disagree with the facts presented then post links to refute them. It appears (at least from the source link below) that Denmark has a similar experince with recent immigrants.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Denmark

Ahh so you attack my country instead of defending the report. Classy. Yes Denmark has a lot of xenophobia and racism and I am ashamed of it. Are you ashamed of your country´s xenophobia and racism?
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,151
Reaction score
12,531
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The article mentioned the 2014 SIPP as being the data source - I did not bother to check it.

Yes and the SIPP 2014 is not exactly easy to navigate, which makes it damn hard to actually find the raw data they are using and conveniently not mentioning where to find it. One thing that I have never seen in any "census" material is the term "naturalised citizen" in conjunction with stats like this.. Hispanic, White and the usual racist crap, but nothing on citizenship. That means either there is a data set buried deep somewhere that the usual suspects of xenophobic racists on Briebart and Fox News have not been able to dig up, or the authors of the report fiddled with the data to paint this picture..
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
iceberg.png



Several data points are conveniently omitted from the reporting in that story
; thus the story presents an incomplete picture, yet it disingenuously and tacitly bids readers to form a view -- usually one that comports with the author's; however, in this case, because the WashEx article's author doesn't present his view (the article is presumably presented as news/information, not as an editorial/column), it's the CIS' view (to the extent the article presents it) the reader is bid to concur with -- based on the information presented. For example, omitted is information needed to know:

  • What share of welfare-of-some-sort-receiving households are citizen households?
    • X percent of welfare-of-some-sort-receiving households are natural-born citizen households --> B
  • What share of welfare-of-some-sort-receiving households are naturalized citizen households
    • X percent of welfare-of-some-sort-receiving households are naturalized citizen households --> C
Careful readers will observe that the report tells readers that "4,684,784 million non-citizen households" receive welfare, thus allowing one to answer the the following question:
  • What share of welfare-of-some-sort-receiving households are non-citizen?
    • X percent of welfare-of-some-sort-receiving households are non-citizen households --> N
Were the article to provide cardinal quantities for the other classes noted in the charts, readers could at least calculate B, C and so on....But the article doesn't share that information, thus forcing readers to find it themselves. Based on what I know about that publication's likely reader base, the odds of that are, in my estimation, fairly low.

Does the CIS' report include that information? I suspect it does -- the CIS tends to "do right" in terms of disclosing its methodology; however its analyses/reports are rarely, if ever, dispassionately presented (I'm aware of only one such instance), thus requiring readers to "dig deep" to determine whether the conclusions/inferences the CIS articulates follow soundly/cogently from the premises and data presented -- but I suspect too that the CIS' report doesn't present snazzy charts that comprehensively highlight the full nature of the matter.

With whatever be the value of "X" in the above equations, one can then obtain a full picture of the scale and scope of the problem using the following model:
  • B x .35 x # of welfare-receiving household --> share of welfare-receiving household that are natural born citizen households.
  • N x .63 x # of welfare-receiving households --> share of welfare-receiving household that are non-citizen households.
  • C x .50 x # of welfare-receiving households --> share of welfare-receiving household that are naturalized citizen households.

In light of the incomplete presentation found in the Washington Examiner's article, it is, AFAIC, good for little other than correctly answering a "Trivial Pursuit" question.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,472
Reaction score
40,667
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ahh so you attack my country instead of defending the report. Classy. Yes Denmark has a lot of xenophobia and racism and I am ashamed of it. Are you ashamed of your country´s xenophobia and racism?

I am not attacking anyone or any place. I am simply pointing out that recently arriving foreign nationals (immigrants) are not apt to be as financially well off as long established citizens of any (relatively rich) nation are. Presenting basic economic data is not xenophobic or racist.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,151
Reaction score
12,531
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I am not attacking anyone or any place. I am simply pointing out that recently arriving foreign nationals (immigrants) are not apt to be as financially well off as long established citizens of any (relatively rich) nation are. Presenting basic economic data is not xenophobic or racist.

Yes I agree...up to a point. However if you read the article and the responses then you would think that the "non citizens" are draining the US for money which was the whole point of the article and report.

Now lets do an experiment. There are 100 apples, where 90 are green and 10 red apples. Of the 10 red apples 3 are rotten.. so 30% are rotten. Of the 90 green 9 are rotten, so that is 10%. And now take this and apply it to the OP. They state low low numbers in % of Americans getting welfare relative to the "non citizens" who ever they are. Problem is, in actual numbers, real Americans use a huge bulk of the welfare and actually contribute less to society than "non citizens".

We have had this debate in Europe in Brexit... immigrants using the NHS. Problem is that not only do immigrants tend to be young and healthy, but they contribute far far more to society than locals. But of course that is never discussed.. well much. Point is for every 1 pound the "non citizen" in the UK takes out, the same group puts in 1.3 or something like that in taxes. Locals tend to use far more "welfare" than "non citizens".

That is why I am saying this study is to promote xenophobia and not much actual fact.
 

Sampson Simpson

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
5,137
Reaction score
2,795
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
You've missed the point. There's nothing to refute because the assertions weren't based on actual data. As soon as you or anyone else can make a direct connection to some reputable data there will be something to challenge.

Who needs facts or sources when we have your feelings, right?

It's the right wing way, they never have facts
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
When you use the categories as you do in the report.. then it is clear xenophobia. Why are "naturalised Americans" a separate category? Are they not Americans? One thing for sure, for many on the right.. they are not, hence the distinction in the report. There are plenty of problems with the methodology in the report.

It's discussing immigration, and the impacts. Has nothing to do with Xenophobia.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
36,151
Reaction score
12,531
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It's discussing immigration, and the impacts. Has nothing to do with Xenophobia.

No it is not..it is using raw data to paint a picture that says immigration is bad and costing Americans money. Funny how it does not mention the relative size of "immigrants" vs "Americans". Funny how it forgets to mention the economic positives of immigration.. funny how that is.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,528
Reaction score
36,591
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The article mentioned the 2014 SIPP as being the data source - I did not bother to check it.

Correct, and that source was not accurately represented.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
71,472
Reaction score
40,667
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes I agree...up to a point. However if you read the article and the responses then you would think that the "non citizens" are draining the US for money which was the whole point of the article and report.

Now lets do an experiment. There are 100 apples, where 90 are green and 10 red apples. Of the 10 red apples 3 are rotten.. so 30% are rotten. Of the 90 green 9 are rotten, so that is 10%. And now take this and apply it to the OP. They state low low numbers in % of Americans getting welfare relative to the "non citizens" who ever they are. Problem is, in actual numbers, real Americans use a huge bulk of the welfare and actually contribute less to society than "non citizens".

We have had this debate in Europe in Brexit... immigrants using the NHS. Problem is that not only do immigrants tend to be young and healthy, but they contribute far far more to society than locals. But of course that is never discussed.. well much. Point is for every 1 pound the "non citizen" in the UK takes out, the same group puts in 1.3 or something like that in taxes. Locals tend to use far more "welfare" than "non citizens".

That is why I am saying this study is to promote xenophobia and not much actual fact.

Your 'apples' point is taken yet you have omitted a key factor - taxation rates in the UK are much higher than 30% and you (purposefully?) left out how much net the green apples (with their 90% non-welfare use rate) contributed in taxation. Your (bolded above) assertion is simply not supported by any facts - telling me that a group of 90% non-welfare users (green apples?) contributes less in taxation than group of 70% non-welfare users (red apples?) is simply a fantasy - even if the worker skill level and education of those two groups was identical (which is likely not the case).

There is simply no way to justify having 12M (to 20M?) illegal immigrants already residing within the US borders and (currently) 6K to 10K more waiting to get in with most having little education or fluency in English. Every job taken by an illegal immigrant is one less job available for a citizen or legal immigrant to do. Another point, not even mentioned in the OP link, is the added cost (and frustration) of trying to educate (or employ) folks that do not speak English.
 
Top Bottom