Uncategorized

Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare

Mass immigration is subsidized by the state.
—————————————————————————————————
Surprise, surprise; Census Bureau data reveals that most U.S. families headed by illegal immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare programs on behalf of their American-born anchor babies.

Even before the recession, immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, according to the extensive census data collected and analyzed by a nonpartisan Washington D.C. group dedicated to researching legal and illegal immigration in the U.S. The results, published this month in a lengthy report, are hardly surprising.

Basically, the majority of households across the country benefitting from publicly-funded welfare programs are headed by immigrants, both legal and illegal. States where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62%), Texas, California and New York with 61% each and Pennsylvania (59%).

The study focused on eight major welfare programs that cost the government $517 billion the year they were examined. They include Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the disabled, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a nutritional program known as Women, Infants and Children (WIC), food stamps, free/reduced school lunch, public housing and health insurance for the poor (Medicaid).

Food assistance and Medicaid are the programs most commonly used by illegal immigrants, mainly on behalf of their American-born children who get automatic citizenship. On the other hand, legal immigrant households take advantage of every available welfare program, according to the study, which attributes it to low education level and resulting low income.

The highest rate of welfare recipients come from the Dominican Republic (82 %), Mexico and Guatemala (75%) and Ecuador (70%), according to the report, which says welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents.

Categories: Uncategorized

8 replies »

  1. I am making a documentary about various government subsidized programs and people who apply for them and make their living from these services.
    I am currently unemployed (since August) and had an income of $45,000. My wife makes about $130,000. We own our own home (not upside down, but lost some equity due to the mortgage debacle). We also own a rental property that we break even on when the renter pays on time. I currently have no income – but we’re both frugal. Neither of us has received social services of any kind. I worked for about 20 years in social services but NOT on the social work side – more on the clinical side. I would have to say that I’ve never met an actual homeless person in all the years I worked with people who received housing, social security, welfare, food stamps, etc. Many of my clients panhandled and held up “homeless” cardboard signs – collected about $50-100 per day, then came home to their group home (paid by the government) where they received 100% medicaid/medicare services, food, had a team of therapists, case workers, free transportation, special holiday meals and gifts, clothing, food stamps, etc. All told, their net annual income exceeded mine. I was salaried and sometimes worked 60-80 hours per week.
    Here is my idea:
    I want to learn how to LEGALLY tap into every government handout there is available to me under the law. I will do some “hidden camera” aka 60 minutes type investigation into whether that is easy or hard – if it is a flawed system or not. I will follow all the rules for compliance – but my goal will be to see how much support on any level I can get and document (I’ll report income and benefits, etc. online to be completely transparent).
    My goal will be to make more money NOT working than if I worked; investigate the good, bad and ugly of social programs and publish the documentary in a public forum after I’ve finished.
    I don’t have any skills in the area of malingering, bumming money, etc.,
    I’m interested in learning how from people who deliberately exploit the system as well as people who work hard to make the system work. The results – in favor or against – of the current system will be truthfully reported. So, whether I am successful and this reveals serious flaws that need to be reformed – or it is a humbling experience that results in a need for every one of these efforts to survive, I will report it as such.
    Thanks, Tregix
    tregix@hotmail.com

  2. My position on immigration is a simple one: Immigration policy should be based on what is best for the host society and native population rather than on what immigrants want. Immigration is a public matter and involves the use and allocation of public resources, and not merely a matter of individual gratification.

  3. “My position on immigration is a simple one: Immigration policy should be based on what is best for the host society and native population rather than on what immigrants want. Immigration is a public matter and involves the use and allocation of public resources, and not merely a matter of individual gratification.”

    Keith,

    Well in fairness, that argument can be made about almost anything and in fact it is, by both right and left with a paternalistic bent. As you have pointed out in the past, those on the left can be just as bad as those on the right when it comes to things like drugs, prostitution, gambling, alcohol, unlicensed vendors, and a whole host of other things. Those leftists make the same arguments about externalities that you do about immigration. Check out the commenter “TenaciousK” below this article http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-to-purchase-cocaine-and-heroin.html for a perfect example of what I am talking about regarding leftists on the issue of drugs.

    As for the issue of immigrants coming in unskilled and without education, well there are a whole lot of people already in the country that fit that description. All those people are breeding every year ( at a much higher rate than the intelligent and the educated) and are bringing more people into the world who not only come from inferior genetic stock, but also are raised in the some of the worst possible environments exhibit A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVoGUhPyQxg . I myself am not arguing for coercive eugenics, but I am pointing out that just as good a case could be made for that as for concern about immigration. I can’t say that I am too concerned about an influx of immigrants anymore than I am concerned about the issue I mentioned earlier.

  4. “As you have pointed out in the past, those on the left can be just as bad as those on the right when it comes to things like drugs, prostitution, gambling, alcohol, unlicensed vendors, and a whole host of other things. Those leftists make the same arguments about externalities that you do about immigration.”

    I think the empirical case against mass immigration is a lot stronger. For instance, if I had to defend the drug prohibitionist side in a debate, I simply wouldn’t be able to do it because there’s no arguments that are actually supported by empirically-derived data to support the prohibitionist position. But I don’t think that’s the case with immigration. I think the evidence is there that the state and the corporate elite foster immigration in a good number of ways rather than merely allowing or tolerating it. There’s also the practical problem of a potential influx of hundreds of millions of new immigrants in a relatively short amount of time and the consequences of this on a number of levels, with the primary concern being civil peace: http://www.immigrationline.net/international-organization-for-migration-stats.html

    There’s no evidence that hundreds of millions of people are waiting to become junkies when drugs are legalized. But there is evidence hundreds of millions from around the world would immigrate to the US if given the opportunity. Of course, immigration law isn’t the only thing that keeps them from coming. There are also economic costs, family and cultural ties, language barriers, etc. But a strong empirical argument could be made against the “come one, come all” approach of many libertarians.

    “As for the issue of immigrants coming in unskilled and without education, well there are a whole lot of people already in the country that fit that description. All those people are breeding every year ( at a much higher rate than the intelligent and the educated) and are bringing more people into the world who not only come from inferior genetic stock, but also are raised in the some of the worst possible environments.”

    Touche’. Point well taken. No disagreement here.

    “I can’t say that I am too concerned about an influx of immigrants anymore than I am concerned about the issue I mentioned earlier.”

    It probably wouldn’t be that much of a problem without the state and corporate power behind it. Actually, I’m all for working with immigrant communities for the common goal of decentralizing political and economic power down to the city, town and village level. Andrew Yeoman pointed out once that Japanese, Chinese, Cuban and other immigrant communities are in many ways already practicing national-anarchism. I’d personally have no problem having a Hmong North American N-A tribe or a Korean-American ATS group or something like that. I’d be all for it. I can’t speak for anyone else, but what I personally object to is not so much immigration or “multiculturalism” per se. Classical Greece and the Holy Roman Empire were multicultural societies. It’s more the use of multiculturalism to advance totalitarian humanism that is my issue.

  5. Keith,

    Well my point about not being concerned about immigration is that I not really concerned about all the boogeymen out there, like the conservatives and many liberals want people to be. In other words if everything goes to hell, I’m not too concerned.

    There are two reasons for this. One is the fact that I have my doubts that human beings will get there act together, Indeed I think judging by the way so many people behave, most of them do have a death instinct. They have no desire to pursue a better world and as described in that “Parallel Hierarchies and Tribal Communism” article, perhaps people probably will revert to a tribal system when the oil runs out (it that happens). If humans really are despoiling the planet through modern technology and overpopulation, would it not be in the interests of all life on earth for modern human society to collapse and perhaps the quicker the better. I may have said this before in a comment so it may be redundant, but in my more pessimistic moments my thoughts are that the majority of people are bullies and cowards at bottom, in other words they will prey on those weaker on them, but will shrink from anyone with superior strength. I hope I am wrong about this fact.

    My second reason for a lack of concern is a personal one. I don’t figure that I have too much of a future at this point and therefore I don’t feel like I would be missing much to check out early. I actually do not want to experience old age and the degradation that comes with it. I think that if humanity had its act together, that might be one project that people would get around to, but unfortunately for me, most people prefer to waste way in exchange for the dubious pleasure of making copies of themselves and enjoying “a complete life”http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/03/thinking-about-aging. I certainly agree that millions of people are not lining up to become junkies, but I figure if it really is TEOTWAWKI, I might as well indulge a few activities that I would not normally consider if there was a future worth living. On a practical level, if almost everyone is going to be hacked to death by marauding gangs of ruffians, it probably makes sense to be high out of your mind on some really powerful painkillers.

    Lastly, in an anticipated reply to how some might respond to my last paragraph, I would just point out that I do not have a “death wish” and I well I don’t feel guilty for being “selfish” for supposedly not valuing my life, I will just point out that I see life as something that should be cherished and consequently should be held in high regard. I do believe that it is the fact that should be the foundation for the NAP that libertarians advocate which of course necessitates an ability to empathize with others. On the other side, there is a the fear based mentality that does not value life, but simply seeks to preserve it out of fear of death. Now to any potential critics that would accuse me of talking tough in the last paragraph, I will say that yes, I have that fear based survival instinct in me like most people, but unlike many I don’t see it as a good thing and on the contrary, believe it is something to be fought against as it is nothing more in my mind than a primitive instinct that kept my ancestors alive long enough to pass on their genes. If I could tear the fear parts of my brain out, I’d do it even if those parts kept me out of danger a few times in my life.

    I do believe that fear and self-preservation at all costs has had a negative affect on humanity. It is in my opinion, one of the primary reasons that human beings have put up with despotism and slavery for most of human history. Despite the fantasies of some paleo types, bravery and courage were never values widespread among the population and for the most part, they have only existed in union for slavish devotion to some ruler and/or state. In modern times, politicians use fear as a tool to manipulate the public probably more than almost any other. I think a good case can be made for the assertion that things like tough on crime law and order policies, the drug war, the expanding prison state, the military industrial complex are whole at the root based on fear which is one reason why I find it laughable when such policies policies are considered macho. When it comes to kids, all those stupid “scared straight” programs operate the same way, and what horrifies me is that so many people think that’s just swell. If I did have children, I’d hope that they’d have better reasons not to become crackheads and car thieves than the reason that they would be beaten and raped in jail.

  6. Jared-

    I share more than a bit of your manner of thinking here. May I have an email by which to write to you privately? If you (quite understandably) don’t wish to post it here, you can PM me by joining the Forums of the Libertarian Left and sending a message to “Aster1”.

  7. Aster,

    Hopefully if your still here

    jrdmtt@gmail.com

    This is my 2nd email address so I’m not too concerned about posting in this forum, rather that than giving info to a site that I would never participate in.

Leave a Reply