Watchhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/8/slow-path-to-progress-for-us-immigrants/
43% on welfare after 20 years
mmigrants lag behind native-born Americans on most measures of economic well-being — even those who have been in the U.S. the longest, according to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, which argues that full assimilation is a more complex task than overcoming language or cultural differences.
The study, which covers all immigrants, legal and illegal, and their U.S.-born children younger than 18, found that immigrants tend to make economic progress by most measures the longer they live in the U.S. but lag well behind native-born Americans on factors such as poverty, health insurance coverage and homeownership.
The study, based on 2010 and 2011 census data, found that 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 20 years were using welfare benefits, a rate that is nearly twice as high as native-born Americans and nearly 50 percent higher than recent immigrants.
The report was released at a time when both major presidential candidates have backed policies that would make it easier to immigrate legally and would boost the numbers of people coming to the U.S.
Steven A. Camarota, the center’s research director and author of the 96-page study, said it shows that questions about the pros and cons of immigration extend well beyond the sheer numbers and touch on the broader consequences of assimilating a population defined by tougher socioeconomic challenges.
“Look, we know a lot of these folks are going to be poor, we get it. But don’t tell the public it’s all going great, which is the story line I think a lot of people want to sell,” Mr. Camarota said. “There is progress over time. Every measure shows improvement over time, but still, the situation does not look like we’d like it to look, particularly for the less-educated. They lag well behind natives even when they’ve been here for two decades, and that is very disconcerting.”
Federal law requires that the government deny immigrant visas to potential immigrants who are likely to be unable to support themselves and thereby become public charges.
On Tuesday, a handful of Republican senators wrote to the Homeland Security and State departments asking them to explain why they don’t consider whether potential immigrants would use many of the nearly 80 federal welfare programs when they evaluate visa applications.
Neither department responded to messages Tuesday seeking a response to the senators’ letter.
Expanding legal immigration is a contentious issue for voters, the vast majority of whom tell pollsters that they want the levels either retained or decreased.
But most politicians want legal immigration expanded.
During his time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama backed bills that would have dramatically boosted legal immigration, potentially by hundreds of thousands a year. As president, he has called for the same thing.
mmigrants made up more than half of all farmworkers, 41 percent of taxi drivers and 48 percent of maids and housecleaners, but they also represented about one-third of all computer programmers and 27 percent of doctors.
The center found that use of public benefits varied dramatically based on where immigrants originated.
Mexicans were most likely to use means-tested benefit programs, with 57 percent, while 6 percent of those from the United Kingdom did. The rate for native-born Americans is 23 percent.
Follow
Befriend (1)
250 threads
4,770 comments
That's my fault, I'm White sorry about that Jose, my Bad.
If I just wasn't so damn White, I'm sure there would be a board of directors gig available for you. You want I should wallow in a creek?
Follow
Befriend (9)
168 threads
1,552 comments
Premium
Perhaps there should be a term limit for benefits. You don't get most benefits-save food stamps or some such-for the first ten of fifteen years? One has to pay into the system to get benefits??
Follow
Befriend (9)
416 threads
4,138 comments
Baltimore, MD
lostand confused says
A lifetime ban would be better.
Follow
Befriend (1)
24 threads
557 comments
lostand confused says
For starters, I'd stop giving more benefits to people who have kids. Some people have them JUST so they can get more benefits. Infact, I would consider it a crime for people on welfare to have children at all.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
StoutFiles says
Let's start by eliminating the tax deduction for kids. That makes no sense since kids use more government services than adults such as parks and schools.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
StoutFiles says
Yikes, I wouldn't go *that* far.
But it seems reasonable to put a limit on benefits beyond say, 2 or 3 children.
Follow
Befriend (16)
769 threads
7,714 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Total welfare spending is $679.2 billion, and that would upset me if I didn't know that total military (so-called defense) spending is $903.3 billion. I'd rather spend $680 billion on housing and food for the poor than $900 billion on killing people and destroying communities and thus causing poverty.
But let's cut a deal. I'll agree to eliminating all welfare spending if you agree to reduce defense industry spending to $10 billion /yr. That will save the U.S. $1,572.5 billion a year. We could eliminate the income tax for anyone making less than $250,000 /yr. and still balance the budget and pay off the national debt saving America another $330.3 billion a year.
And all we have to do is cut these commie socialist programs like welfare and defense.
* Stats from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html