Rael reason for caravans and whatnot

[windriverrange]

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

63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more

4,684,784 million non-citizen households are receiving welfare

 

[AC_Exotic]

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

63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more

4,684,784 million non-citizen households are receiving welfare

Freaking infuriating and ridiculous.

 

[windriverrange]

I've often lamented how difficult it is to get to this country legally. Wife and I are in the process of getting her lined up to apply for and take the Naturalization Test the link is the form you have too fill out and send in with $725 USD.

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/n-400.pdf

Pages 11-16 are some of the dumbest questions you could ask on a form and seriously who would say yes to those if they actually applied? Just loath the cheaters......

 

[Rdcldad]

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

4,684,784 million non-citizen households are receiving welfare

WTF

 

[CowboyJD]

WTF

Definition of non-citizen households includes members with an American citizen in them (just not the head), to start.

I didn’t get deep into the numbers and that jumped out at me.

 

[osuengineer]

The real cause of the caravan is the comparative image that results when people think of and see America as a “shining city on a hill”, then compare that to their own nation’s corrupt and ineffective government.

Academics will tell migration always has two factors- a push and a pull. The push is their native countries. They wouldn’t leave if it wasn’t so bad. The pull factor is America and the American dream ethos.

They’re not leaving something good and coming to America just for the lulz and the welfare. They’re leaving something horrible and literally life-threatening, and hoping for something slightly better, that’s America.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

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

63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more

4,684,784 million non-citizen households are receiving welfare

Racist.

 

[windriverrange]

Definition of non-citizen households includes members with an American citizen in them (just not the head), to start.

I didn’t get deep into the numbers and that jumped out at me.

if there is an American citizen in the house it is one of generally three options; first a child born here with illegal parents, second an American citizen who is in the process of marrying/married a foreigner and lastly a refugee. Either of the first two scenarios is flat wrong. We've beat the dead horse into dust regarding birthright citizenship so am not going to talk about that here, except to say I hope it changes soon. The second option is grounds for the non-citizen to be deported. When you sign up to bring a foreigner into the country you are on the hook for all living and medical expenses. The fact that the government doesn't enforce that law often is yet something else that needs to be changed. The last option is at least understandable but once a person receives a green-card they should have a max limit for funds, once you burn up that max either work two jobs or learn to eat dog food. There will always be extenuating circumstances and I've got no problem will extending benefits to those people, but those that game the system, need to have limits and once they breech those limits they either leave or starve.

Remove the incentives for illegals to be here and enforce the provisions of laws that allow for citizens to bring in foreigners and much of this dries up.

 

[Rdcldad]

if there is an American citizen in the house it is one of generally three options; first a child born here with illegal parents, second an American citizen who has in the process of marrying/married a foreigner and lastly a refugee. Either of the first two scenarios is flat wrong. We've beat the dead horse into dust regarding birthright citizenship so am not going to talk about that here, except to say I hope it changes soon. The second option is grounds for the non-citizen to be deported. When you sign up to bring a foreigner into the country you are on the hook for all living and medical expenses. The fact that the government doesn't enforce that law often is yet something else that needs to be changed. The last option is at least understandable but once a person receives a green-card they should have a max limit for funds, once you burn up that max either work two jobs or learn to eat dog food. There will always be extenuating circumstances and I've got no problem will extending benefits to those people, but those that game the system, need to have limits and once they breech those limits they either leave or starve.

Remove the incentives for illegals to be here and enforce the provisions of laws that allow for citizens to bring in foreigners and much of this dries up.

well there is that

 

[AC_Exotic]

The real cause of the caravan is the comparative image that results when people think of and see America as a “shining city on a hill”, then compare that to their own nation’s corrupt and ineffective government.

Academics will tell migration always has two factors- a push and a pull. The push is their native countries. They wouldn’t leave if it wasn’t so bad. The pull factor is America and the American dream ethos.

They’re not leaving something good and coming to America just for the lulz and the welfare. They’re leaving something horrible and literally life-threatening, and hoping for something slightly better, that’s America.

Economic hardship by law doesn't merit refugee status in America. They'll have to get in line and apply like everyone else.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Economic hardship by law doesn't merit refugee status in America. They'll have to get in line and apply like everyone else.

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

 

[Ostatedchi]

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

Did you even read? Nowhere does economic hardship appear in the form for asylum.

Race
Religion
Nationality
Political Opinion
Membership in a particular social group
Torture Convention

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Did you even read? Nowhere does economic hardship appear in the form for asylum.

Race
Religion
Nationality
Political Opinion
Membership in a particular social group
Torture Convention

Smh...exactly.

 

[CowboyJD]

if there is an American citizen in the house it is one of generally three options; first a child born here with illegal parents, second an American citizen who has in the process of marrying/married a foreigner and lastly a refugee. Either of the first two scenarios is flat wrong. We've beat the dead horse into dust regarding birthright citizenship so am not going to talk about that here, except to say I hope it changes soon. The second option is grounds for the non-citizen to be deported. When you sign up to bring a foreigner into the country you are on the hook for all living and medical expenses. The fact that the government doesn't enforce that law often is yet something else that needs to be changed. The last option is at least understandable but once a person receives a green-card they should have a max limit for funds, once you burn up that max either work two jobs or learn to eat dog food. There will always be extenuating circumstances and I've got no problem will extending benefits to those people, but those that game the system, need to have limits and once they breech those limits they either leave or starve.

Remove the incentives for illegals to be here and enforce the provisions of laws that allow for citizens to bring in foreigners and much of this dries up.

Or a native born children of legal immigrants, asylum holders or green card holders. Furthermore, as the article points out there are legal immigrants that have been here long enough to qualify for certain benefits.

“Much of this” is a subjective term as is “generally three options” when I’ve shown several other options of which we don’t have numbers for.

I am all for removing incentives for illegal non-citizens here receiving benefits. I merely pointed out that those numbers appear to be gamed a bit by defining “ non-citizens” receiving benefits as including citizens that are the ones receiving the benefits. I didn’t even express an opinion as to how much of an effect that gaming makes.

 

[aix_xpert]

Definition of non-citizen households includes members with an American citizen in them (just not the head), to start.

I didn’t get deep into the numbers and that jumped out at me.

This is the anchor baby argument.

 

[CowboyJD]

This is the anchor baby argument.

I understand that, but as I pointed out in a subsequent post even if you make the anchor baby argument, not all native born citizens born to immigrants are born to illegals.

 

[windriverrange]

Or a native born children of legal immigrants, asylum holders or green card holders. Furthermore, as the article points out there are legal immigrants that have been here long enough to qualify for certain benefits.

“Much of this” is a subjective term as is “generally three options” when I’ve shown several other options of which we don’t have numbers for.

I am all for removing incentives for illegal non-citizens here receiving benefits. I merely pointed out that those numbers appear to be gamed a bit by defining “ non-citizens” receiving benefits as including citizens that are the ones receiving the benefits. I didn’t even express an opinion as to how much of an effect that gaming makes.

Legal immigrants who have been here long enough to be naturalized (no oath of allegiance to the US while hanging out on a 10 year visa) and qualify for benefits is a problem in my book. Assimilate, become a citizen or GTFO!

I mentioned asylum seekers and that in some instances incurs extenuating circumstance, no problem with that. Although if they hold a green card they should be working. My wife got a green card as a "legal resident alien" on a 2 year visa with conditions (the follow-up is a 10 year visa with no conditions which can be renewed every 10 years, if you don't want to become a citizen. She knows that she has no option, I didn't bring her here to hang out on a visa. She becomes a US citizen or goes back home). Giving anyone in that group assistance of any kind is IMHO gaming the system. As I've said before, one of the conditions I had to sign to get a K1 visa for her was that I was responsible for all living and medical costs and that if I refused to provide funds for those costs she could be deported.

Just about anyone here legally can get a green card and at they point they are eligible to go out and get a job. If they can't afford their digs, cars or more kids than don't buy or have. No excuse for not working though and definitely no excuse for myself and other taxpayers to subsidize their lifestyles or burgeoning families.

I'll dig a bit more in the data though, as I don't believe that a native born child with legal immigrant parents would be considered anything but a "native born household." Not for gaming the data either, this is a serious problem (as is people who overstay their visas) and there is no room for lying to make the statistic fit your narrative.

 

[CSCOTTOSUPOKES]

Legal immigrants who have been here long enough to be naturalized (no oath of allegiance to the US while hanging out on a 10 year visa) and qualify for benefits is a problem in my book. Assimilate, become a citizen or GTFO!

I mentioned asylum seekers and that in some instances incurs extenuating circumstance, no problem with that. Although if they hold a green card they should be working. My wife got a green card as a "legal resident alien" on a 2 year visa with conditions (the follow-up is a 10 year visa with no conditions which can be renewed every 10 years, if you don't want to become a citizen. She knows that she has no option, I didn't bring her here to hang out on a visa. She becomes a US citizen or goes back home). Giving anyone in that group assistance of any kind is IMHO gaming the system. As I've said before, one of the conditions I had to sign to get a K1 visa for her was that I was responsible for all living and medical costs and that if I refused to provide funds for those costs she could be deported.

Just about anyone here legally can get a green card and at they point they are eligible to go out and get a job. If they can't afford their digs, cars or more kids than don't buy or have. No excuse for not working though and definitely no excuse for myself and other taxpayers to subsidize their lifestyles or burgeoning families.

I'll dig a bit more in the data though, as I don't believe that a native born child with legal immigrant parents would be considered anything but a "native born household." Not for gaming the data either, this is a serious problem (as is people who overstay their visas) and there is no room for lying to make the statistic fit your narrative.

What say you the studies done that show a massive immigration increase being the fastest road to 4+ percent economic growth?

 

[CowboyJD]

I'll dig a bit more in the data though, as I don't believe that a native born child with legal immigrant parents would be considered anything but a "native born household." Not for gaming the data either, this is a serious problem (as is people who overstay their visas) and there is no room for lying to make the statistic fit your narrative.

“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.”

“Non-citizens in the data include illegal immigrants, long-term temporary visitors like guest workers, and permanent residents who have not naturalized. While barriers to welfare use exist for these groups, it has not prevented them from making extensive use of the welfare system, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children,” added the Washington-based immigration think tank.”

It’s seems pretty clear in this study that they counted benefits given to or on behalf of US Born children in a household headed by a “non-citizen” (including non-citizens who are legally here).

They weren’t really lying, but they were definitely defining their terms to fit the narrative that they are pushing. That doesn’t mean that the numbers wouldn’t have been concerning even if they hadn’t done that, but it is pretty clear to me that this isn’t some random unbiased group. It’s a policy driven think tank with an agenda.

I say that not to dismiss the numbers completely. I do it to reflect why I am looking at them with a grain of salt.

 

[windriverrange]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...lifornia-immigrant-households-are-on-welfare/

Another article on the abuse these systems foster.

“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.”

“Non-citizens in the data include illegal immigrants, long-term temporary visitors like guest workers, and permanent residents who have not naturalized. While barriers to welfare use exist for these groups, it has not prevented them from making extensive use of the welfare system, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children,” added the Washington-based immigration think tank.”

It’s seems pretty clear in this study that they counted benefits given to or on behalf of US Born children in a household headed by a “non-citizen” (including non-citizens who are legally here).

They weren’t really lying, but they were definitely defining their terms to fit the narrative that they are pushing. That doesn’t mean that the numbers wouldn’t have been concerning even if they hadn’t done that, but it is pretty clear to me that this isn’t some random unbiased group. It’s a policy driven think tank with an agenda.

I say that not to dismiss the numbers completely. I do it to reflect why I am looking at them with a grain of salt.

As always appreciate the input JD. I agree that many of these articles "modify" the definitions to fit their ideological narrative. According to the article above new rules being considered would save taxpayers over 54 billion a year. Even if 2/3 could be saved than that would be a huge victory for the taxpayers.

 

[imprimis]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...lifornia-immigrant-households-are-on-welfare/

Another article on the abuse these systems foster.



As always appreciate the input JD. I agree that many of these articles "modify" the definitions to fit their ideological narrative. According to the article above new rules being considered would save taxpayers over 54 billion a year. Even if 2/3 could be saved than that would be a huge victory for the taxpayers.

And the $54 billion/yr saved would be more than enough to pay for a $25 billion wall in the first year with the remaining years no more wall installation costs.

I heard yesterday that we pay around $134 billion/yr on all costs related to illegal immigrants. $25 billion for a wall is a small price to pay to reduce the $134 billion substantially every year.

 

[CowboyJD]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...lifornia-immigrant-households-are-on-welfare/

Another article on the abuse these systems foster.



As always appreciate the input JD. I agree that many of these articles "modify" the definitions to fit their ideological narrative. According to the article above new rules being considered would save taxpayers over 54 billion a year. Even if 2/3 could be saved than that would be a huge victory for the taxpayers.

Fair enough....the only commentary I have provided on this topic is pointing out that that particular study seems to be gamed a bit to fit a narrative they had in advance.

On the underlying topic....like usual...I’m somewhere in the middle between stricter means testing for legal immigrants after a waiting period and freely providing free benefits to illegal aliens.

It’s a highly complicated issue in my book....not an all or nothing proposition either way.

 

[osuengineer]

Economic hardship by law doesn't merit refugee status in America. They'll have to get in line and apply like everyone else.

I certainly agree they have to get in line and apply. Whether or not they’re refugees seeking asylum, there’s a process.

In my (albeit limited) experience, if a developing/third world country is having nation-wide economic hardship, there’s also government corruption and class persecution to go along with it.

That being said, if an asylum seeker does not go to a regular port of entry, they shouldn’t be considered for asylum. I’m not a lawyer (I’m an engineer, duh), but I’m pretty sure the port of entry provision is international law.