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

[ttwtt78640]

Correct, and that source was not accurately represented.

Why don't you post an accurate representation of it?

 

[Deuce]

Why don't you post an accurate representation of it?

I can't find anything that remotely supports the claim from the right wing rag in the OP. What exactly am I supposed to post? Can't prove a negative.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I can't find anything that remotely supports the claim from the right wing rag in the OP. What exactly am I supposed to post? Can't prove a negative.

The OP contained "safety net" usage rates allegedly based in the 2014 SIPP data. It seems hard to believe that no other analysis of the 2014 SIPP data exists.

 

[Deuce]

The OP contained "safety net" usage rates allegedly based in the 2014 SIPP data. It seems hard to believe that no other analysis of the 2014 SIPP data exists.

None terribly relevant to the bizarre criteria the right wing dip****s invented, as far as I can find.

 

[Mr Person]

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.

No it doesn't for the simple reason that when media, then politicians and their supporters, repeat this kind of data they are not using it in a careful hyper-technical sense. They are using it instead to imply that people come to the country and then live off of American citizens.

That's why we get this dishonest wink wink nudge nudge OP that is careful to only quote a percentage statement about "welfare programs" without specifying that it for example includes things like the earned income tax credit and most certainly does not mention that 4,370,385 of the 4,684,784 households (almost all of them) contain at least one worker:

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

They're not leeches, which is of course why you (I am now addressing Renae) made sure to omit every part of the article showing that they're not leeches and instead only quoted the part that sounds like it supports your narrative to someone who didn't actually read the article. I wish I could still be surprised by such foolish dishonesty.

Reminds me of a quote about statistics.

 

[chuckiechan]

So according to this.. if a kid gets a free school lunch then the whole family are on welfare... cool!

There are no "Free" lunches.

 

[Mr Person]

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?

Because the data in the article relies on tax breaks for individuals to accuse the individuals taking said breaks of being on welfare ("takers"). And, the painfully obvious logic runs, if the article is going to be fair when it suggest taking a tax break is being on welfare, then it should accuse corporations of the same.

Duh.




Ah, but you didn't know that if a household claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit, the article said that household used a welfare program, did you? That's why you don't start blabbering when you know you don't know what you're blabbering about: you end up saying something quite foolish indeed.

Get it now?

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

English better.

 

[Mr Person]

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".

All, let's take a moment to appreciate the stupidly obvious dishonesty in Renae's post here.

Her complaint against PeteEU's point (a valid one, as re-explained on page 3 near the bottom is that Pete EU supposedly played the race card instead of arguing his point. Things wrong with that:

- Her attack on him alleges that he did not actually argue his point. He did argue his point at length in multiple posts. She dishonestly omitted them, instead choosing this one to respond to.

-- Relatedly, SHE did not make an argument on the actual subject, not in the OP nor in her attack on PeteEU. She did the same general thing that she accuses him off. Her post is stuff with hypocrisy.

- He did not mention race. She dishonestly claimed he did. "Xenophobia" means fear of people from other countries, which for example would include fear of caucasians from Croatia. (Freudian slip by Renae perhaps?).

- This is all painfully clear to anyone who reads posts here for their content. Hence, the dishonesty in her post is most stupid.

 

[chuckiechan]

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

The biggest issue is most of the poor are in "blue" states, and they don't want to know how many are in their cities or how much they are costing the taxpayers. Look at the big brou ha ha about not asking if they are citizens on the census. They are afraid if the citizens find out how big the problem is they will demand action.

If you dig it out, California spends north of 103 billion on "welfare", a term that excludes a lot of other public assistance.

Not feeling warm and fuzzy about caring and feeding everyone who stumbles across our border is not Xenophobia. It's common sense.

 

[Renae]

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.

Pete, every time you scream racism, you show how weak your position really is.

 

[chuckiechan]

All, let's take a moment to appreciate the stupidly obvious dishonesty in Renae's post here.

Her complaint against PeteEU's point (a valid one, as re-explained on page 3 near the bottom is that Pete EU supposedly played the race card instead of arguing his point. Things wrong with that:

- Her attack on him alleges that he did not actually argue his point. He did argue his point at length in multiple posts. She dishonestly omitted them, instead choosing this one to respond to.

-- Relatedly, SHE did not make an argument on the actual subject, not in the OP nor in her attack on PeteEU. She did the same general thing that she accuses him off. Her post is stuff with hypocrisy.

- He did not mention race. She dishonestly claimed he did. "Xenophobia" means fear of people from other countries, which for example would include fear of caucasians from Croatia. (Freudian slip by Renae perhaps?).

- This is all painfully clear to anyone who reads posts here for their content. Hence, the dishonesty in her post is most stupid.

Then maybe we should send the damn caravan to Massachusetts and you can put them up, feed them, and educate their children. Meanwhile they are acting as a destination for their extended family that you are going to pay for. Try selling that idea at the local bar. Or whatever you people drink up there. Your problem is you can't relate to what the states that are inundated with illegals are dealing with and don't care.

 

[zimmer]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...on-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households

4,600,000 ILLEGALS scamming just $1000 annually is...

4.6 BILLION ANNUALLY.

We know it is multiples of this.

 

[JustHanging]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...on-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households

I've tried explaining sources to you before, but you just don't seem to be able to figure it out, do you?

The source is the Center for Immigration Studies.

Here is an evaluation of CIS:

Bias: Extreme Right, Hate Group

Notes: The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is a non-profit research organization “that favors far lower immigration numbers and produces research to further those views.” It was started as a spin-off from John Tanton’s Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 1985. Reports published by the CIS have been widely deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors by scholars on immigration; think tanks from across the ideological and political spectrum; media of all stripes; several leading nonpartisan immigration-research organizations; and by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The organization has also drawn criticism for its financial and intellectual ties to extremist racists. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) published reports in 2002 and 2009 connecting CIS to John Tanton, who helped found various other organizations, including the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and NumbersUSA, and showing he has ties to white supremacy groups and a eugenics foundation (SPLC). Bottom line, this is a hate group. (2/8/2017)




So you check out the hate groups for information against immigrants eh. Well, at least now I know why you always defend Trump's racist actions so vigourously, like when he publicly defended Neo Nazis and the KKK.

 

[JustHanging]

4,600,000 ILLEGALS scamming just $1000 annually is...

4.6 BILLION ANNUALLY.

We know it is multiples of this.

No we don't. The source is a hate group.

What is it with the Trump base that they have nary a clue of how to evaluate sources? No wonder Trump loves his base:


Donald Trump declares 'I love the poorly educated'

 

[Plus Ultra]

So according to this.. if a kid gets a free school lunch then the whole family are on welfare... cool!

No, if you go to the source you see they examine different forms of public assistance (there is a great variety of programs), according to the Census data, the only form of public assistance where citizens outnumber "non-citizens" is in subsidized housing. If a child in public school is deemed eligible for free lunch, the social worker making this determination is obliged to review with that child's parent eligibility for other municipal, State and Federal public assistance, there are programs to provide daycare, medical services (Medicaid and local clinics), a "shelter allowance" (to pay rent), food stamps, money for heating, help with electric bills, Obama was giving away cell phones, some cities offer discounts on public transportation. Recipients of public assistance typically are means-tested for every available program, social workers are incentivized to enroll as many as possible, and they monitor each beneficiary's case for changes that may enhance eligibility (another birth, unemployment, rent increase...).

 

[celticwar17]

Because the data in the article relies on tax breaks for individuals to accuse the individuals taking said breaks of being on welfare ("takers"). And, the painfully obvious logic runs, if the article is going to be fair when it suggest taking a tax break is being on welfare, then it should accuse corporations of the same.

Duh.




Ah, but you didn't know that if a household claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit, the article said that household used a welfare program, did you? That's why you don't start blabbering when you know you don't know what you're blabbering about: you end up saying something quite foolish indeed.

Get it now?







English better.

Corporate tax breaks are done for an entirely different reason. They are a completely different subjects.... and I don't appreciate your bad attitude, take a chill pill.

If it just relies just on tax breaks for individuals than why are their rates of welfare use significantly higher than a native citizen? Everyone is getting these tax breaks...

And a lot of the time, especially in construction... illegal immigrants are not paying taxes...

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

what about this sentence do you not understand? Seems like a lack of reading comprehension on your part than my English.

 

[zimmer]

No we don't. The source is a hate group.

What is it with the Trump base that they have nary a clue of how to evaluate sources? No wonder Trump loves his base:


Donald Trump declares 'I love the poorly educated'

ROTFLOL

4.6 BILLION ANNUALLY at a minimum. That’s just $1,000 per invader.

My guess is the illegal invaders easily cost US Taxpayers up to 500 BILLION annually, with all the theft of US Taxpayer money, education, paper work, court dates, murders, rapes, and associated bull****.

Wie viel ein Flüchtling den Steuerzahler kostet – das ist eine Frage, die niemand präzise beantworten kann. Nach verschiedenen Berechnungen schlagen alleine die Unterkunft, die Verpflegung, die ärztliche Versorgung und ein kleines Taschengeld bei einem Erwachsenen mit 1000 Euro im Monat zu Buche.

Bei 800.000 Flüchtlingen im Jahr sind das 9,6 Milliarden Euro,...

https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.d...-Fluechtling-den-Steuerzahler-id35401887.html

TRANSLATION: 800,000 illegal invaders to Germany cost 9.6 BILLION EURO ANNUALLY... with all the associated costs, and when they receive just 1,000EUR per month.

That was 2015... it’s WAAAAAAY more than that.

 

[JustHanging]

Pete, every time you scream racism, you show how weak your position really is.

No, the fact that you use hate sites to get information shows how weak your position really is.

 

[JustHanging]

ROTFLOL

4.6 BILLION ANNUALLY at a minimum. That’s just $1,000 per invader.

My guess is the illegal invaders easily cost US Taxpayers up to 500 BILLION annually, with all the theft of US Taxpayer money, education, paper work, court dates, murders, rapes, and associated bull****.



TRANSLATION: 800,000 illegal invaders to Germany cost 9.6 BILLION EURO ANNUALLY... with all the associated costs, and when they receive just 1,000EUR per month.

That was 2015... it’s WAAAAAAY more than that.

Multiple giant size fonts, with multiple special effects. My oh my, you really know how to put together a incoherent argument, don't you? SMH.


The data in the OP, the data you're using to base your opinion on, is from a hate site with a history of using false data.

Where in the world did you learn that using giant font sizes equates to truth and making a coherent argument? Or that hate sites are a good place to get factual information? Are you home schooled?

 

[JustHanging]

All, let's take a moment to appreciate the stupidly obvious dishonesty in Renae's post here.

Her complaint against PeteEU's point (a valid one, as re-explained on page 3 near the bottom is that Pete EU supposedly played the race card instead of arguing his point. Things wrong with that:

- Her attack on him alleges that he did not actually argue his point. He did argue his point at length in multiple posts. She dishonestly omitted them, instead choosing this one to respond to.

-- Relatedly, SHE did not make an argument on the actual subject, not in the OP nor in her attack on PeteEU. She did the same general thing that she accuses him off. Her post is stuff with hypocrisy.

- He did not mention race. She dishonestly claimed he did. "Xenophobia" means fear of people from other countries, which for example would include fear of caucasians from Croatia. (Freudian slip by Renae perhaps?).

- This is all painfully clear to anyone who reads posts here for their content. Hence, the dishonesty in her post is most stupid.

Renae is getting her information from a hate site with a history of publishing lies, so none of this should come as a surprise imo. This is not the first time this has happened, and I would suggest doing a quick google regarding the source of any link she provides you. See post #38 for info on the source of data in the OP.

 

[Myview]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...on-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households

No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost


I'm not saying this Huffington Post article gives a complete picture either. The Examiner article paints with a very broad brush to convey it's message to a conservative audience. Including green card holders in its
figures is mis leading.

Green card holders are legal permanent residents who in many cases go on to become naturalized citizens. They are eligible for most if not all of the same benefits that full citizens receive. Holding a green card
means you came into the US by legal means and are following a process to become a naturalized citizen. Green card holders work and pay taxes just like anyone who is a citizen.

Undocumented immigrants MAY be eligible for emergency room visits on humanitarian grounds.
Undocumented immigrants MAY be eligible for schooling and thus free school lunches depending on the State they reside in.
Undocumented immigrants MAY be eligible for WIC

The claims by conservatives that the undocumented get vast amounts of welfare is inflated.

 

[Renae]

No, Undocumented Immigrants Aren't Stealing Your Benefits | HuffPost


I'm not saying this Huffington Post article gives a complete picture either. The Examiner article paints with a very broad brush to convey it's message to a conservative audience. Including green card holders in its
figures is mis leading.

Green card holders are legal permanent residents who in many cases go on to become naturalized citizens. They are eligible for most if not all of the same benefits that full citizens receive. Holding a green card
means you came into the US by legal means and are following a process to become a naturalized citizen. Green card holders work and pay taxes just like anyone who is a citizen.

Undocumented immigrants MAY be eligible for emergency room visits on humanitarian grounds.
Undocumented immigrants MAY be eligible for schooling and thus free school lunches depending on the State they reside in.
Undocumented immigrants MAY be eligible for WIC

The claims by conservatives that the undocumented get vast amounts of welfare is inflated.

Huffpo is pro-illegals, open boarders trash

 

[Myview]

Huffpo is pro-illegals, open boarders trash

If you just don't like immigrants of any kind that's fine. Stick to what you believe but at least look at several other sources of information. There are some that are rated as non biased or less biased than others by both Liberals and Conservatives.

 

[americanwoman]

It just blows my mind you can be in violation of a federal crime and somehow you can still be in a household that qualifies for benefits. Even if this study is biased or whatever you can't deny a significant number of people are receiving benefits that shouldn't based on their immigration status alone.

 

[Renae]

If you just don't like immigrants of any kind that's fine. Stick to what you believe but at least look at several other sources of information. There are some that are rated as non biased or less biased than others by both Liberals and Conservatives.

I've always said I have no problem with immigrants, as long as they come here LEGALLY.