- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...on-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-householdsA 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.
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.
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.
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.
So according to this.. if a kid gets a free school lunch then the whole family are on welfare... cool!
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 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
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?
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".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".
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
The article mentioned the 2014 SIPP as being the data source - I did not bother to check it.
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.
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?
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.
The article mentioned the 2014 SIPP as being the data source - I did not bother to check it.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?