It is a little more nuanced that the data points cherry picked by those with an anti-immigration agenda. https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/jan/29/steve-cortes/are-55-percent-immigrants-california-welfare-s-exa/
I read the article you linked and the only notable nuance is that of individual vs household because immigrants kids regardless of their parents immigration status are us citizens. However, the authors seem to agree with the CIS assertion that the metric needs to be āare immigrants able to care for the needs of their family without having to tap into welfare programs?ā. Iām an immigrant myself and I donāt see anyone arguing against immigration. But thereās a difference between merit based immigration and diversity lottery.
You missed the nuance where school lunch programs are overly inclusive.
I think the key here is ānon-citizensā. Many successful immigrants eventually get naturalized. Meaning, most likely immigrants on the lower social economical ladder end up as non-citizens. Hence skewing this analysis. An equivalent analysis would be only including rural America and claiming high percentage of Americans are on welfare. Without proper sampling all analyses can be skewed.
But non citizens would include h1b and GC holders, and I'm quite surprised the welfare ratio is so high.... I would still like to see an extra breakdown by education level.
No doubt if we stick to merit based immigration non-citizens would have zero welfare. The problem is illegal immigration, anchor babies and chain migration. H1B is a tiny fraction of the overall immigration.
Voter data, 48% of US citizens voted for an orange cheeto to become president, leads rest of the world to believe they are mentally deficient...
Very strong argument! You are good at this! Buy a cheddar cheese puff for yourself later today š
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner. Don't see any official government census in the article. Charts made from Excel
The Examiner is a right leaning publication. The Center for Immigration Studies is an anti-immigrant organization. No surprise that one would publish a story about a report written by the other.
Without breakdown and segmentation of data, this article is useless. I suspect both sides and of the narrative are true. Skilled immigrants will out-earn native pop because of selection bias, with largest diff peaking at naturalized citizens (just because how long it takes to naturalized and age correlate with earning power). Unskilled immigrants and illegals will tend to use more welfare because their jobs are lower paying and so they have no choice.
Illegal immigrants cannot apply for welfare. You need a pile of paperwork and all immigration paperwork provided get scrutinized.
Wrong. Illegal aliens are eligible for welfare if their kids are born on U.S. soil. That's a major reason why they want to pop out babies here.
Seems fishy but what an appropriate topic for the Holliday season! Tis the season to pull away benefits from poor people who need them š
The Republican congress still have a chance to fix the current immigration policy which basically amounts to looting Americans.
I don't think anyone on H1B gets any welfare. We fucking pay the FICA and other such shit but it's not really for our welfare. The minimum wage for h1b exceeds USA median income (60k+ I think) (need to check)
Technically you can claim SS without being a citizen or GC holder. As long as you pay 10yrs into the system, you are entitled to get some out when you retire.
Technically how can you pay into the system without having a SS number?
I prefer a report from a more neutral organization. There are x ways you can screw with data. Washington Examiner is a known conservative publication.
"arrival of the refugees in the United States created political problems for President Jimmy Carter. His administration struggled to develop a consistent response to the immigrants, and it was discovered that a number of the refugees had been released from Cuban jails and mental health facilities. " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift
Interesting. How do we reconcile this with the observation that h1b, green card holder and naturalized citizens earn more than native citizens? If this data is true and the one I cited is accurate, it's almost as if there is a bimodal split in immigrants.
Do you have a source for your thesis that immigrants earn more than native citizens?
Seen a few studies on that just google for it I believe the salary increases from h1b to to GC to naturalized, and at some point it exceeds native pop. It makes sense from the perspective that skilled immigrants are self selection bias, only the best get to live and do well in America.