Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

New goverment and residency


Drew

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 12/5/2018 at 7:50 AM, Mainecoons said:

:D

It's being reported 63 percent of immigrant households there are collecting welfare.  Where do we sign up?

 

That 63% number is from the Center for Immigration Studies, a private, right-wing anti-immigration group.  

And what is "welfare?"  It's not like there's a single program where you go to sign up.  Welfare can better be defined as any government subsidy program. 

Go to school on the GI bill?  Have a VA or FHA home mortgage?  Are you a farmer with crop or dairy subsidies?   Did you start a business with a SBA loan?  Buy federal flood insurance?  Take a credit from IRS for solar panels or adopting a child?  Plenty of new corporate and upper-class welfare in the latest tax law.  

As to where do immigrants in Mexico go to sign up....if you belong to IMSS or Seguro Popular you already have.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bisbee Gal said:

That 63% number is from the Center for Immigration Studies, a private, right-wing anti-immigration group.  

And what is "welfare?"  It's not like there's a single program where you go to sign up.  Welfare can better be defined as any government subsidy program. 

Go to school on the GI bill?  Have a VA or FHA home mortgage?  Are you a farmer with crop or dairy subsidies?   Did you start a business with a SBA loan?  Buy federal flood insurance?  Take a credit from IRS for solar panels or adopting a child?  Plenty of new corporate and upper-class welfare in the latest tax law.  

As to where do immigrants in Mexico go to sign up....if you belong to IMSS or Seguro Popular you already have.  

 

Uh, no:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/census-confirms-63-percent-of-non-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households

numbers-welfare-18-f1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MC...that story in the Examiner is quoting the same dubious source.  From the Examiner story:

Quote

The Center for Immigration Studies said in its report that the numbers give support for Trump’s plan to cut non-citizens off welfare from the “public charge” if they want a green card that allows them to legally work in the United States.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bisbee Gal said:

MC...that story in the Examiner is quoting the same dubious source.  From the Examiner story:

 

Please read the "source" information at the bottom of the chart.  It is 2014 U.S. Census.  Very clearly stated.  The fact you don't like the sources quoting it doesn't change where it comes from.  That's exactly why I posted the chart.  You won't see this information in the highly biased "main stream media" precisely because it doesn't fit their agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can assure you the welfare rate for the "real native households" is much higher than this.  Although most of the money is paid through the tribes the money comes from the U. S. Government.  Some tribes   are very wealthy like mine the Chickasaws who own over a hundred business's  and are the third largest employer in Oklahoma. Some tribes have done well but other tribes are dirt poor and live on government handouts.  The government provides free medical care, free eyeglasses and hearing aids.  Free food through a nutrition program, free homes through a housing program and many other programs.   I am sure these programs would move the real native americans to the top of the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, rafterbr said:

I can assure you the welfare rate for the "real native households" is much higher than this.  Although most of the money is paid through the tribes the money comes from the U. S. Government.  Some tribes   are very wealthy like mine the Chickasaws who own over a hundred business's  and are the third largest employer in Oklahoma. Some tribes have done well but other tribes are dirt poor and live on government handouts.  The government provides free medical care, free eyeglasses and hearing aids.  Free food through a nutrition program, free homes through a housing program and many other programs.   I am sure these programs would move the real native americans to the top of the list.

Just a useless fact the, Seminole Indians own Hard Rock hotels and restaurant. I use to spend my weekends in the Quinta Real now I use the new Hard Rock in Guadalajara. The one in Panama is super. 62 stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mainecoons said:

Please read the "source" information at the bottom of the chart.  It is 2014 U.S. Census.  Very clearly stated.  The fact you don't like the sources quoting it doesn't change where it comes from.  That's exactly why I posted the chart.  You won't see this information in the highly biased "main stream media" precisely because it doesn't fit their agenda.

It's a matter of how CIS spins the data to support its admitted anti-immigration stance.  

This is what a legitimate think tank, the CATO institute says about the Census data. 

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates#full

Quote

Previous analyses by the Center for Immigration (CIS) come to contrary conclusions regarding the relative use of public benefits by immigrants and natives.18 The main reason for our differing findings is that CIS analyzes welfare use by entire households based on whether the head is an immigrant, whereas we examine individuals by immigration status. Focusing on persons is more accurate because households headed by immigrants often contain multiple native-born Americans, including spouses and children. Furthermore, the unit of assistance for the largest welfare programs of Medicaid, CHIP, SSI, Social Security retirement benefits, and Medicare is the individual, not the household. CIS’s focus on the household unit of assistance for all welfare programs — regardless of the actual unit of assistance used in apportioning benefits — inflates immigrant welfare use. Focusing on individuals, rather than on households, allows this brief to identify which particular subgroups, such as naturalized immigrants or noncitizens, are receiving public benefits, whereas CIS’s methods preclude that type of granular analysis.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, rafterbr said:

I can assure you the welfare rate for the "real native households" is much higher than this.  Although most of the money is paid through the tribes the money comes from the U. S. Government.  Some tribes   are very wealthy like mine the Chickasaws who own over a hundred business's  and are the third largest employer in Oklahoma. Some tribes have done well but other tribes are dirt poor and live on government handouts.  The government provides free medical care, free eyeglasses and hearing aids.  Free food through a nutrition program, free homes through a housing program and many other programs.   I am sure these programs would move the real native americans to the top of the list.

I think we incurred something of a debt when we forced the Indians from their ancestral lands to less desirable lands. This is not true of immigrants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gringal said:

...and here we go again,  discussing U.S. policies, politics and airing our biases.  (Waving hands in air) We are in Mexico, remember ??🙄

Wanna give me that bullsh-- about being guest here. NOT we pay quite a bit to be here and contribute to the economy. Shouldn't the USA have an earnings requirement for immigrants to be sure they don't parasite on our economy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real Seminole Indians are headquartered in Oklahoma and I assure you they own no Hard Rock Hotels.  They are a very poor tribe with few assets.  A few left behind Seminole native americans have achieved a degree of wealth in Florida and good luck to them.  This wealth is not shared with the tribe.  I know the former chief of the Seminoles and he tried to help the tribe but could never get their standards raised.  I have gone to Seminole Indian churches and I assure you the Seminole Nation is very poor.  They have one casino in a good location but their inability to manage it has led to suspensions by the federal gaming commission and no profit for the tribe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, geeser said:

Wanna give me that bullsh-- about being guest here. NOT we pay quite a bit to be here and contribute to the economy. Shouldn't the USA have an earnings requirement for immigrants to be sure they don't parasite on our economy?

That is not at all what she meant, and you should know better. This thread is getting stupider and stupider.

There are many reasons there is a rule about not talking politics on this board. The powers that be seem to be ignoring that point these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, geeser said:

Shouldn't the USA have an earnings requirement for immigrants to be sure they don't parasite on our economy?

 

They do have one. It's called an

I-134, Affidavit of Support

To show that visa applicants have sponsorship and will not become public charges while in the United States. The sponsor must file a separate affidavit for each applicant.

https://www.uscis.gov/i-134

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with ComputerGuy politics can be a bad topic for discussion.  It sure is interesting though.  There are many people here who have tremendous world experiences and I could always use some of their knowledge.  I wish we could come up with topics which are interesting and people can participate and learn.  Maybe I will try one or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bisbee Gal said:

It's a matter of how CIS spins the data to support its admitted anti-immigration stance.  

This is what a legitimate think tank, the CATO institute says about the Census data. 

https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates#full

 

 

There are two different methodologies here it is true.  Look at your tables 5 and 6 in your own reference and you see just how big this is, which is the point CIS is making.  While Cato likes to claim their methodology is more valid I question the underlying assumption of it.  In any case both show there's a very large welfare drain due to non-citizens.  The percentages vary but the end result is the same.

I don't believe that creating a magnet for illegal immigration by handing out public funds to illegal immigrants is smart public policy in any country.  Frankly I think Mexico's approach to immigration in general is far more intelligent and Mex centric than a lot of western countries, including both U.S., Canada and Europe, where excessive generosity is creating a serious problem in all of the countries that practice it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Immigrants Don't Drain Welfare. They Fund It.

By LAURA RESTON

September 3, 2015

The CIS study exaggerates the number of immigrants on welfare by using households as the unit of analysis; as long as the head of household is an immigrant, they consider it an immigrant household, and Camarota counts a household “as using welfare if any one of its members used welfare during 2012.” This means that a household with an American spouse who therefore qualified for welfare could be counted as “using welfare.” The same would go for a child born in the United States to immigrant parents. If he or she received subsidized lunch at school, the whole household would be categorized as “using welfare.” As the Cato Institute notes in its critique of the study, that measure is “ambiguous, poorly defined, and less used in modern research for those reasons.” Relying on such mutable methodology let Camarota exaggerate the number of immigrants on welfare to back up the claim that Americans are footing the bill for immigrants. 

https://newrepublic.com/article/122714/immigrants-dont-drain-welfare-they-fund-it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This very cleverly blends legal and illegal immigrants, Angus.  Note that both CIS and Cato address illegal immigrants.  This is is a common tactic to blend immigrants together by pro open borders folks but it is very misleading to say the least.  Respectfully, your source is just as biased in the opposite direction as is the CIS organization.

Here's what the GAO has to say about it:

https://www.gao.gov/products/HEHS-95-133

Quote

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates of the national net costs of illegal aliens to all levels of government; (2) the variation in these estimates; and (3) areas in which the estimates could be improved.

GAO found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; (3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments; (4) displacement costs and revenue estimates account for much of the variation in the estimates of the national net costs of illegal aliens; (5) the estimates are difficult to assess because the studies do not always clearly explain the criteria used to determine which costs and revenues are appropriate to include in the estimates; and (6) the cost estimates could be improved by recognizing the difficulties inherent in collecting data on a hidden population, focusing on key characteristics of illegal aliens, and explaining more clearly which costs and revenues are appropriate to include in such estimates.

I stand by my earlier comment:

Quote

I don't believe that creating a magnet for illegal immigration by handing out public funds to illegal immigrants is smart public policy in any country.  Frankly I think Mexico's approach to immigration in general is far more intelligent and Mex centric than a lot of western countries, including both U.S., Canada and Europe, where excessive generosity is creating a serious problem in all of the countries that practice it.

And Gringal, your point is well taken which is why I addressed my comment to the policy of subsidizing illegals in general as practiced by quite a substantial number of countries, not just the U.S. and with seemingly not very good results.  I think Mexico is a lot smarter in these matters and now I see AMLO is promising to stop the illegal immigration at Mexico's southern border.  Mexico doesn't need to import problems and poverty anymore than the U.S. does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MC....MEX is a poor country with at best, a fledgling economy with few job opportunities.  The US is a wealthy country with a current unemployment rate that requires the importation of labor especially for low-wage jobs. 

Part of the answer is to change US policy so that more workers from MEX could work in the US on a temporary basis, up to 5 years.  Maybe limit it to workers only (not dependents), track them in a regular basis, no government bennies, no pathway to citizenship, etc.   Allow them to visit their families in MEX without penalizing them for leaving the US.

There are a number of locals MEX men who went to the US solo and worked and saved, then came back to MEX and started their own businesses, started families and/or built or bought a home for their family.  The ones I have talked to said they crossed illegally because a seasonal worker permit of a single growing season did not allow them to stay in the US long enough to save money to come back to MEX permanently.   Again, these men want to go and earn and save some decent money and then RETURN to Mexico. 

If the US and MEX worked together on devising a new guest worker program this it could be a win-win.  Jobs would be filled in the US and MEX workers would return to MEX to start businesses, hire locals who would not need to go to the US.  Mexicans are very proud of their heritage, most do not want to leave MEX forever.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Bisbee Gal. That has been my experience in talking with Mexicans for 20 years. A guest worker program, of the kind that Canada has, would be a benefit to both the U.S. and Mexico. Please note that I'm talking about Mexicans and not the current illegals which are arriving at the U.S. border trying to escape horrific conditions in their own countries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...