|
Nora Skinker (Morton)
If E-verify is mandatory, why would Trump be stumping for it? Is it another immigration law, which as been on the books for years, and is now just being enforced? It's still confusing to me. I, too, wonder why so many sites and sources are saying it's mandatory in some states and not in others.
To read how welfare and immigration statistics are horribly scattered and unclear, read National Review's Jason Richwine's May 15, 2019 piece, "Obfuscating the Immigration Welfare Debate" dated May 15, 2019. (I could not figure out how to post a link, even after consulting our own Steve Cutler. Am open to assistance.) To pluck a few lines from it: "...cash assistance, food stamps, medicaid, are free programs for the poor. Social Security and medicare are not means-tested and generally require recipients to pay into the system beforehand. Lumping contributing entitlements and means-tested benefits is incredibly misleading in a group comparison."
Meanwhile, addressing my previous figures, here is an opinion page from "40 Years FAIR" (fairus.com) dated July of this year on "Immigration and Welfare:"
"Despite being known as the Land of Opportunity, every year more and more immigrants -- both legal and illegal -- end up on public assistance. Even though they are prohibited from accessing certain entitlement programs, welfare dependency among the foreign-born is higher than among native-born Americans. This is problematic because it further strains our social safety net, the purpose of which is to offer assistance to American citizens. Allowing non-citizens to access welfare benefits is irresponsible and an unfair burden on taxpayers which should be ended. The solution to this growing problem is to first more strictly enforce "public charge" (see fairus.org) laws. Further solutions should include moving toward a merit-based immigration system and pursuing a goal of overall reduction of current immigration levels.
HIGH IMMIGRATION WELFARE USE
The immigrants currently being admitted into the US are less skilled and less educated than the native population, which means they are more likely to inhabit lower income brackets and require public assistance. In 2017, the share of foreign-born individuals (14.5%) and non-citizens (18.6%) living below the poverty line is much higher than the share of native-born Americans living in poverty - 11.9%, according to US Census Bureau data. Given their higher poverty rates, it is unsurprising that data shows immigrants are more dependent on welfare programs than native-born Americans. In 2014, almost two thirds (63%) of households headed by a non-citizen took advantage of at least one welfare program, compared to just 35% among native-headed households. Furthermore, the high welfare usage rate for the households headed by the foreign-born increases to 70% among those living in the US for 10 years or moe. There is also some anecdotal evidence of foreign-born individuals collecting welfare while simultaneously retaining assets in their countries of origin.
THE ROOTS OF THE PROBLEM
The extremely high levels of welfare use among immigrants can be largely attributed to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The goal of the legislation was to diversify the immigration flow into the country. The post-1965 immigration system- which remains in place today - is heavily skewed towards family-base immigration (aka "chain migration") at the expense of skills and education. The US has long had public charge laws (fairus.org) to ensure that new immigrants are not a burden on society. In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) barred illegal aliens from welfare programs that receive federal funds. It also rendered immigrants ineligible for mean-tested federal benefits for 5 years after admission to the US. In response to complaints from pro-alien groups that the public charge rules were "draconian" and "anti-immigrant", the Clinton administration back peddled, redefining "public charge" to allow both legal and illegal aliens to collect most types of welfare benefits without penalty. The Obama administration further broadened the Clinton-era guidelines, making even more benefits available to foreigners who never paid into our social safety net. Illegal immigration further aggravates the problem. While illegal aliens are technically prohibited from receiving most means-tested federal welfare benefits by law, 26 states - that is more than half - currently offer benefits to individuals who are in the US unlawfully. Moreover, illegal aliens also collect welfare on behalf of their US-born children, who, based on a flawed interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment (("birthright citizenship"), are automatically counted as US citizens. They are also entitled to free public education. Overall, illegal immigrants cost American taxpayers $116 billion annually, which included the costs of welfare benefits they collect.
THE SOLUTION
To tackle the problem of immigrant welfare dependencey, President Trump signed a memorandum that will finally enforce a 23 year old provision requiring sponsors of legal immigrants to reimburse the government for any social services the immigrant uses in the US. This step in the right direction came in the wake of the administration's publication of a proposed public charge rule in late September 2018, which clearly defined a long-standing law aiming to ensure that new immigrants do not become burdens on American society. In addition, we must reform our immigration system so that it is based on merit rather than (often distant) family connections. Doing so will ensure that arriving immigrants can be successful and self-sufficient, because they will possess the job skills necessary to participate fully in the US economy. It is also important to bring our immigration levels from the over one million annually that we currently recieve to a more sustainable 300,000 per year. Finally we must secure our borders and reduct illegal immigration."
(While I do not necessarily agree with some of the more subjective conclusions put forth in the above piece, I search for a clear & full picture of what is going on. This forum pumps out information from a few sources (mostly WashPo and NYT), which are worthwhile, I feel a balanced debate should offer differing viewpoints. Thus it's worth reading, in our quest to be educated, issue-savvy voters.)
Lastly, for a scary look at the power of Google, etal., to affect our elections, log onto C-SPAN.org/video (or youtube.com) and type in "Ted Cruz Questions Google Executive" in the search bar. (Thanks, Steve!) All of us should be appalled. Share thoughts.
|
he 
