Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

respectmen -> Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/12/2016 2:54:22 AM)

http://louderwithcrowder.com/20959-2/

The demise of a good welfare system in the western world. Thanks leftists.



PeonForHer -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/12/2016 3:26:10 AM)

After a strenuous two minute search about these heavy-benefit-using immigrant *households*:

CIS Exaggerates the Cost of Immigrant Welfare Use

Largely because:

"The CIS report should have compared immigrant individuals to native-born individuals for three reasons. First, the number of people in an individual does not vary but the number of people in a household can vary tremendously. The greater number of children in the immigrant household, rather than any different level of individual welfare use, is what largely drove the report’s results. "

http://www.cato.org/blog/cis-exaggerates-cost-immigrant-welfare-use

I know, I know. Balance is boring.



tweakabelle -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/12/2016 3:52:11 AM)

You silly silly boy. You should check out the bona fides of the people who write these "reports" before you use them to make a point.

The report in the OP was compiled by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which sounds like a mild scholarly endeavour. A little scratching below the surface reveals CIS to be founded by one John Tanton, a retired optician with "ties to white supremacy groups and a eugenics foundation" according to the SPLC. It further noted :
"CIS presents itself as a scholarly think tank that produces serious immigration studies meant to serve "the broad national interest." But the reality is that CIS has never found any aspect of immigration that it liked, and it has frequently manipulated data to achieve the results it seeks. (emphasis added)

So the report is written by activists with a dubious research record, not scholars or academics. The qualifications of the authors aren't listed. However in July 2014, CIS senior policy analyst Stephen Steinlight said that the US should ban Muslim immigration because "Muslims believe in things that are subversive to the Constitution", called immigration reform "a plot against America" and Republicans who support it "psychotic", and of President Barack Obama that "being hung, drawn and quartered is probably too good for him." That ought provide some insight into the attitudes of the researchers, which give every sign of being significantly less than scientific or scholarly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tanton

Throw this dubious bit of trash into the nearest trash container.



respectmen -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/12/2016 3:59:50 AM)

So just because of the source, it's wrong simply because it's not left learning.



PeonForHer -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/12/2016 4:00:34 AM)

No, it's wrong because it's bollocks.



tweakabelle -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/12/2016 4:20:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

So just because of the source, it's wrong simply because it's not left learning.

So it's not enough for the 'report' to be compiled by a white supremacist with an interest in eugenics?

If you are interested in what people like this have to say about immigration please be my guest but I won't be accompanying you as you wade through the muck this bigot throws up.



WickedsDesire -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/12/2016 5:25:52 AM)

PeonForHer No, it's wrong because it's bollocks…you’ve mentioned that at least twice with that OP, that I have noticed, over the last two days. I concur

As for you op, and your other incarnations, many of your threads involve this modus operandi: dumping some utter biased garbage ( a piece of sophistry) article link on the forums on here, either verbatim, or just a link of utter garbage, and some pointless comment designed to incite

Mein Kampf I think he went a smidegon too far, not far enough
Malleus Maleficarum burn them all

Actually the last week or so, and I know the British press can be biased, some of the links. Some of you posted re the American press surprised even me, with their bile, made up facts and vitriol.

Which is why I try and stick to the BBC and wiki - as an okish guide.



Phydeaux -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/12/2016 8:33:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


"The CIS report should have compared immigrant individuals to native-born individual



Why? Why should it?

In fact, such a presentation is disingenuous. The concept of 'average native born individual' is in itself a fallacy. Upper end or middle class people do not use Medicaid. In fact it is the poor that do.

When you take 'avergae native born individuals' - you are taking the vast majority of people that use no medicaid and mixing it in with the poor -who consume a great deal of medicaid funds - and creating a statistic that has no meaning whatsoever.

In point of fact, immigrant families come here and use medicaid at rates equal to or exceeding the rates of native poor people.

So the real question is - why should we want these poor people coming into the states and subsidizing their medical care?



tj444 -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/12/2016 10:44:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

http://louderwithcrowder.com/20959-2/

The demise of a good welfare system in the western world. Thanks leftists.


This twisting of facts includes claiming illegal immigrants get welfare, the fact that illegal immigrants can not get any welfare or other benefits seems to elude them.. children of immigrants that are born in the US are not immigrants, they are American and entitled to the same benefits that any other born-in-the-USA American child is..

And without immigrants there wouldnt be as many new businesses as immigrants are more likely to start a business than born in the USA Americans are.. some very large major companies! This is the other side of immigration that so many Americans seem to forget about..

"The Shocking Stats About Who's Really Starting Companies In America

Fully a third of venture-backed companies that went public between 2006 and 2012 had at least one immigrant founder at the helm. Arianna Huffington and other prominent entrepreneurs on why the U.S. needs to get creative about immigration policy.

What do Google’s Sergey Brin, eBay’s Pierre Omidyar, and Tesla Motors’s Elon Musk all have in common? Each of these serial entrepreneurs who founded companies that have market caps in the tens or hundreds of billions—employing tens of thousands of workers—were born outside the U.S. From Yahoo to Facebook and LinkedIn, each of these innovative companies that have played such a large role in the U.S. economy had at least one founder that was born abroad and then emigrated to the United States.

Immigrants today are more than twice as likely to found businesses as their native-born counterparts and are responsible for more than 25% of all new business creation and related job growth. And while some of these immigrant-led businesses are next-generation startups and small businesses, many actually top the charts when it comes to America’s largest companies. Currently, more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants, according to a study by The Partnership for a New American Economy, a group of governors and business leaders launched by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Australian media heavyweight Rupert Murdoch. Yet today, more than 200 years after the U.S. declared independence and threw open its doors to immigrants looking for freedom and a chance to realize their potential, the land of opportunity has been inching its doors shut.

"Thirty-three percent of venture-backed companies that went public between 2006 and 2012 had at least one immigrant founder at the helm."

A recent study put out by the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) found that venture-backed companies with at least one foreign-born founder are responsible for an increasing amount of IPOs and subsequent job creation. The study concluded that 33% of venture-backed companies that went public between 2006 and 2012 had at least one immigrant founder at the helm. The study also found that those public, venture-backed companies with at least one immigrant founder represent a market capitalization of $900 billion.

These revenue-generating machines are an enormous boost to the U.S. economy—contributing to the GDP, paying taxes to help lower the U.S. debt, creating domestic jobs (immigrant-founded, venture-backed public companies employ approximately 600,000 people globally with the majority of jobs created in the U.S.) and helping to lift up the standard of living overall."

http://www.fastcompany.com/3015616/the-shocking-stats-about-whos-really-starting-companies-in-america



Awareness -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/12/2016 12:41:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

http://louderwithcrowder.com/20959-2/

The demise of a good welfare system in the western world. Thanks leftists.
Couple of problems with that.

First off, they're quoting per household instead of per capita. It's no secret that people from poorer countries tend to have more children (probably due to some kind of evolutionary imperative) so this is highly misleading.

Second, around 1200 of that differential is due to medicaid. If only the USA had a single-payer health system....

Another 600 is due to food... which is.. like.... what happens when you have more children in the household. You have to spend more on food.

Third, what's immediately telling is that the article deliberately sticks to averages. There's a reason for this. They don't want to highlight the paucity of data they possess. Their actual data is drawn from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, not from any report on ACTUAL government expenditure.

The SIPP has a number of issues which make it largely unsuitable for this kind of analysis. Significantly, participation in federal programs and the amount of dollars received from those programs are self-reported. Self-reported data is notoriously unreliable. I could explain the bullshit figures these fucking morons have regurgitated by simply pointing out that recent immigrants are more likely to be happy than natives and so will inevitably overestimate the amount of taxpayer largesse they're receiving.

The SIPP is constructed using a survey of between 14,000 and 37,000 people over a course of several years. The CIS then calculates percentages based on this data then extrapolates to the entire population of the USA.

What this means is that a survey based on 1/10,000th of the population is then extrapolated out as being representative of the entire population.

Now the SIPP has its uses but utilising the data is something which needs to be done very careful. I'll give one small example.

It's well known that means calculated from smaller sample sizes suffer increased volatility, whereas larger samples sizes reduce the influence of outliers. What the CIS has done is compare the mean from a group with a smaller sample size to the mean from a group with a larger sample size. They've compared means from immigrants vs means from non-immigrants but fail to mention that one group is ten times the size of the other.

To do an accurate comparison, they should've taken equivalent numbers of immigrants and non-immigrants from the pool of samples, then calculated a mean based on that.

Essentially, they're extrapolating a fantasyland set of figures on the basis of self-reported data from less than 4,000 people.

I could go on, but the CIS is a partisan group advocating for reduced immigration. If you believe a word they say, then you're a fucking moron.



Politesub53 -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/13/2016 5:38:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

No, it's wrong because it's bollocks.


You are starting to sound like me Peon [;)]



Aylee -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/13/2016 5:44:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

http://louderwithcrowder.com/20959-2/

The demise of a good welfare system in the western world. Thanks leftists.


This twisting of facts includes claiming illegal immigrants get welfare, the fact that illegal immigrants can not get any welfare or other benefits seems to elude them.. children of immigrants that are born in the US are not immigrants, they are American and entitled to the same benefits that any other born-in-the-USA American child is..




That is not true. Prop 187 in California is a wonderful example. It was voted that illegals could NOT get benefits but a court overturned it so they could.



Nnanji -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/13/2016 6:02:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

So just because of the source, it's wrong simply because it's not left learning.

So it's not enough for the 'report' to be compiled by a white supremacist with an interest in eugenics?

If you are interested in what people like this have to say about immigration please be my guest but I won't be accompanying you as you wade through the muck this bigot throws up.

Is that the same eugenic organization that started planned parenthood?



tj444 -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/13/2016 8:40:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

http://louderwithcrowder.com/20959-2/

The demise of a good welfare system in the western world. Thanks leftists.


This twisting of facts includes claiming illegal immigrants get welfare, the fact that illegal immigrants can not get any welfare or other benefits seems to elude them.. children of immigrants that are born in the US are not immigrants, they are American and entitled to the same benefits that any other born-in-the-USA American child is..




That is not true. Prop 187 in California is a wonderful example. It was voted that illegals could NOT get benefits but a court overturned it so they could.



False.. The Feds challenged it & it was overturned as it covered areas of the law that the Feds (not CA) regulate.. the state overstepped its bounds & it was bitch slapped by the Feds as a result.. The fact remains that the Feds dont give benefits to illegal immigrants as proof if citizenship is required..



vincentML -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/14/2016 2:00:14 PM)

~FR~

Ah fuk! Bitching about food and healthcare for children is a new low for right wing arse holes.

There is this little glitch in the 14th Amendment that affords equal protection of law to persons not just citizens, not just documented, not just natives, not whatever, but to persons regardless of their legal status.

Clearly, the most humane and decent clause in our Constitution.



Phydeaux -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/14/2016 3:40:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

http://louderwithcrowder.com/20959-2/

The demise of a good welfare system in the western world. Thanks leftists.


This twisting of facts includes claiming illegal immigrants get welfare, the fact that illegal immigrants can not get any welfare or other benefits seems to elude them.. children of immigrants that are born in the US are not immigrants, they are American and entitled to the same benefits that any other born-in-the-USA American child is..




That is not true. Prop 187 in California is a wonderful example. It was voted that illegals could NOT get benefits but a court overturned it so they could.



False.. The Feds challenged it & it was overturned as it covered areas of the law that the Feds (not CA) regulate.. the state overstepped its bounds & it was bitch slapped by the Feds as a result.. The fact remains that the Feds dont give benefits to illegal immigrants as proof if citizenship is required..


Absolutely Stupidly False.

Any patient coming to a hospital emergency room requesting emergency care must be screened and treated until stabilized for discharge or stabilized for transfer whether or not insured, whether or not "documented," and whether or not able to pay.

Emtala 1986. Used an abused for 30 years now. You should have heard about it by now.



Aylee -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/14/2016 4:05:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: respectmen

http://louderwithcrowder.com/20959-2/

The demise of a good welfare system in the western world. Thanks leftists.


This twisting of facts includes claiming illegal immigrants get welfare, the fact that illegal immigrants can not get any welfare or other benefits seems to elude them.. children of immigrants that are born in the US are not immigrants, they are American and entitled to the same benefits that any other born-in-the-USA American child is..




That is not true. Prop 187 in California is a wonderful example. It was voted that illegals could NOT get benefits but a court overturned it so they could.



False.. The Feds challenged it & it was overturned as it covered areas of the law that the Feds (not CA) regulate.. the state overstepped its bounds & it was bitch slapped by the Feds as a result.. The fact remains that the Feds dont give benefits to illegal immigrants as proof if citizenship is required..



Nice backpedal, you are still wrong though. You stated " illegal immigrants can not get any welfare or other benefits." I have given an example where that is NOT true. So has Phydeaux.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/14/2016 4:29:23 PM)

Good point. Interesting how sometimes the "strict constitutionalists" overlook what it actually says, eh?



bounty44 -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/14/2016 4:43:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

~FR~

Ah fuk! Bitching about food and healthcare for children is a new low for right wing arse holes.

There is this little glitch in the 14th Amendment that affords equal protection of law to persons not just citizens, not just documented, not just natives, not whatever, but to persons regardless of their legal status.

Clearly, the most humane and decent clause in our Constitution.


quote:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


assuming your interpretation is correct---make the argument how giving welfare falls under "the equal protection of the laws."

quote:

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense.


http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Immigrants Take More Welfare than Non-Immigrants. A LOT More (5/14/2016 4:59:51 PM)

quote:

make the argument how giving welfare falls under "the equal protection of the laws.

Oh that's easy. Welfare is established and governed by laws, and therefore guess what...it applies equally to all people within the jurisdiction of whichever body enacted the law in question.
As for the protection part, which I am guessing is somehow central to your point seeing as you italicized it, well welfare laws are there to prevent starvation and destitution, therefore... well I'll let you figure it out on your own.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625