Discussion:
Nearly Two-Thirds Of Non-Citizen Households In America Are On Welfare
Add Reply
me
2018-12-04 23:42:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-04/nearly-two-thirds-non-citizen-households-america-are-welfare
b flanier
2018-12-05 00:23:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:42:29 PM UTC-7,werner posted
more of his bias BS.

The federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the
welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of
all federal outlays in that year.

A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement
programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries
are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested
welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.

Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits
and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value
of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet
the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs
or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have
lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to
native-born Americans.

The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is
substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare
to native-born Americans.


https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates
me
2018-12-05 01:09:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
So do you disagree with this:”A Center for Immigration Studies review of U.S. Census Bureau data reveals a stunning 63% of households in the U.S. headed by non-citizens are on some form of welfare.”

If so, how my post BS?

Your contribution to this issue doesn’t improve conditions. It just makes it worse. Looks like both our factoids show ‘you get more of what is subsidized and less of what is taxed’. Triage is our future.
b flanier
2018-12-05 03:25:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by me
If so, how my post BS?
"Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits
and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value
of benefits than native-born Americans."

What I objected to in your post was the implication that immigrants
are sucking the system dry and so immigrants should not be permitted
1)to be entitled to welfare 2)not be allowed in this country in their
attempt to have a better life for themselves and children. So shallow
on your part. This country can do so much for those attempting to
escape conditions in their home and we should be willing to give them
a hand up. Yes, I'm a bleeding heart liberal and proud of it!! We have
so much.

As for your continued cry of "triage", what will put us in need of
that is our stupid outlays for the military. When is enough enough?
me
2018-12-05 04:56:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
My experience with bleeding heart Liberals is that they personally do little or nothing to lift a finger for the less fortunate. You might be different, but probably not.
b***@gmail.com
2018-12-05 23:53:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b flanier
Post by me
If so, how my post BS?
"Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits
and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value
of benefits than native-born Americans."
What I objected to in your post was the implication that immigrants
are sucking the system dry and so immigrants should not be permitted
1)to be entitled to welfare 2)not be allowed in this country in their
attempt to have a better life for themselves and children. So shallow
on your part. This country can do so much for those attempting to
escape conditions in their home and we should be willing to give them
a hand up. Yes, I'm a bleeding heart liberal and proud of it!! We have
so much.
As for your continued cry of "triage", what will put us in need of
that is our stupid outlays for the military. When is enough enough?
According to Google, the US military budget is 37% of the entire world's military budget. I suppose that's because we have to defend most of the world who don't want to pay their dues.
mg
2018-12-05 02:45:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:23:58 -0800 (PST), b flanier
Post by b flanier
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:42:29 PM UTC-7,werner posted
more of his bias BS.
The federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the
welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of
all federal outlays in that year.
A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement
programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries
are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested
welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.
Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits
and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value
of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet
the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs
or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have
lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to
native-born Americans.
The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is
substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare
to native-born Americans.
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates
The Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank that appears to be
defending welfare programs (for immigrants). Normally, one would think
that's something that the left wing would be doing. So, I can't help
but wonder why the right-wing likes immigration so much. Let's see . .
. could it be that they like the cheap labor?
b flanier
2018-12-05 03:32:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank....
Kinda shocked me also that they would come up with such.

As for your conclusion that Cato likes immigration for whatever
reason, I don't know. Your guess is as good (or better) than
mine.

As for their "defense" of welfare for immigrants, I did not
draw that conclusion from the report. What led you to that?
mg
2018-12-05 09:35:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:32:47 -0800 (PST), b flanier
Post by b flanier
The Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank....
Kinda shocked me also that they would come up with such.
As for your conclusion that Cato likes immigration for whatever
reason, I don't know. Your guess is as good (or better) than
mine.
As for their "defense" of welfare for immigrants, I did not
draw that conclusion from the report. What led you to that?
This excerpt from the Cato institute website that you provided:

"Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits
and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value
of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet
the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs
or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have
lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to
native-born Americans.

The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is
substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare
to native-born Americans."
El Castor
2018-12-06 00:01:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mg
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:32:47 -0800 (PST), b flanier
Post by b flanier
The Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank....
Kinda shocked me also that they would come up with such.
As for your conclusion that Cato likes immigration for whatever
reason, I don't know. Your guess is as good (or better) than
mine.
As for their "defense" of welfare for immigrants, I did not
draw that conclusion from the report. What led you to that?
"Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits
and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value
of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet
the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs
or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have
lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to
native-born Americans.
The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is
substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare
to native-born Americans."
The Gov is proposing an excellent new rule to govern eligibility of
aliens for admittance to the US. There are five more days to post a
comment.

"Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds"
"Action
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Summary
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to prescribe
how it determines whether an alien is inadmissible to the United
States under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) because he or she is likely at any time to become a public
charge. Aliens who seek adjustment of status or a visa, or who are
applicants for admission, must establish that they are not likely at
any time to become a public charge, unless Congress has expressly
exempted them from this ground of inadmissibility or has otherwise
permitted them to seek a waiver of inadmissibility. Moreover, DHS
proposes to require all aliens seeking an extension of stay or change
of status to demonstrate that they have not received, are not
currently receiving, nor are likely to receive, public benefits as
defined in the proposed rule."
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCIS-2010-0012-0001

Thank you President Trump.
mg
2018-12-06 22:03:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:01:43 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:32:47 -0800 (PST), b flanier
Post by b flanier
The Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank....
Kinda shocked me also that they would come up with such.
As for your conclusion that Cato likes immigration for whatever
reason, I don't know. Your guess is as good (or better) than
mine.
As for their "defense" of welfare for immigrants, I did not
draw that conclusion from the report. What led you to that?
"Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits
and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value
of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet
the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs
or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have
lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to
native-born Americans.
The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is
substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare
to native-born Americans."
The Gov is proposing an excellent new rule to govern eligibility of
aliens for admittance to the US. There are five more days to post a
comment.
"Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds"
"Action
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
Summary
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to prescribe
how it determines whether an alien is inadmissible to the United
States under section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA) because he or she is likely at any time to become a public
charge. Aliens who seek adjustment of status or a visa, or who are
applicants for admission, must establish that they are not likely at
any time to become a public charge, unless Congress has expressly
exempted them from this ground of inadmissibility or has otherwise
permitted them to seek a waiver of inadmissibility. Moreover, DHS
proposes to require all aliens seeking an extension of stay or change
of status to demonstrate that they have not received, are not
currently receiving, nor are likely to receive, public benefits as
defined in the proposed rule."
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCIS-2010-0012-0001
Thank you President Trump.
I imagine that the cost of buying voters for the Democratic party is
starting to add up. So, that would obviously be a terrific idea.
b flanier
2018-12-07 00:33:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mg
I imagine that the cost of buying voters for the Democratic party is
starting to add up.
How much was spent in your neck of the woods to buy Dem votes? Kinda
a waste of money, no?

Further, what evidence can you share with froup that there is
vote buying anywhere in the U.S.? Inquiring minds want to know.
mg
2018-12-07 07:56:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 16:33:15 -0800 (PST), b flanier
Post by b flanier
Post by mg
I imagine that the cost of buying voters for the Democratic party is
starting to add up.
How much was spent in your neck of the woods to buy Dem votes? Kinda
a waste of money, no?
Further, what evidence can you share with froup that there is
vote buying anywhere in the U.S.? Inquiring minds want to know.
I think that the reason that some Republicans like immigration from
third-world countries (like Mexico) is because they like the cheap
labor. With the Democratic party, on the other hand, I think the
reason that they like immigration from countries like Mexico is
because they are essentially importing voters.

In both cases, the politicians are spending public money and depleting
public resources to promote their own private interests and the big
losers are my children and grandchildren and yours, if you have any.



-------------------------------------
Contraception is a key in controlling
the proliferation of unusual weather
that is endangering the world.
-- Al Gore & Bill Gates, World Economic Forum, 2014
me
2018-12-07 13:32:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I can’t believe you asked. What part of the government does not buy votes?
http://www.endit.info/Theft.shtml
http://www.endit.info/how.shtml
http://www.endit.info/Costs.shtml

We demand lots of things without wanting to pay for them. Tax corporations! Tax the rich! Promise me everything but not more taxes. The list is endless. Some demand farm subsidies. So we have the federal Department of Agriculture. Others want low cost housing. So we have HUD. Voters want federal education funds to reduce local taxes. So we have the Department of Education. Many seek protection from harmful medications. (Federal Drug Administration); money for the poor (Health and Human Services); a secure retirement (Social Security Administration); free or subsidized health care (Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare) and on and on. The federal government now contains hundreds of ‘departments’, ‘Independent agencies and government-owned corporations’, 'Federal Entities’ as well as 'Designated Federal Entities'. Why do you suppose there is no federal Department of Liberty or Cabinet Secretary for Freedom?
http://www.endit.info/Reality.shtml

me
2018-12-05 05:03:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Libertarians have nothing against immigrants. They object to subsidizing them. Immigrants built this country. This isn’t Kansas anymore. That was before welfare programs. The Commons is being decimated. That leads to tragedy. It has led to tragedy.
http://www.endit.info/Costs.shtml
El Castor
2018-12-05 07:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mg
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:23:58 -0800 (PST), b flanier
Post by b flanier
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:42:29 PM UTC-7,werner posted
more of his bias BS.
The federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the
welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of
all federal outlays in that year.
A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement
programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries
are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested
welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.
Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits
and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value
of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet
the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs
or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have
lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to
native-born Americans.
The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is
substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare
to native-born Americans.
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates
The Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank that appears to be
defending welfare programs (for immigrants). Normally, one would think
that's something that the left wing would be doing. So, I can't help
but wonder why the right-wing likes immigration so much. Let's see . .
. could it be that they like the cheap labor?
I am a card carrying member of the right-wing. If I was in the
restaurant business, I sure wouldn't want an Irishman making my tacos
and burritos. We just had some roof and drywall work done -- entirely
Latino labor. I have no interest in deporting law abiding illegals
already here. Give them a green card. But, we have enough! Build the
Damn Wall and end birthright for non-residents!! BTW -- it's not just
cheap labor, it's high quality, hard working, conscientious labor.
mg
2018-12-05 09:52:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 23:26:42 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:23:58 -0800 (PST), b flanier
Post by b flanier
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:42:29 PM UTC-7,werner posted
more of his bias BS.
The federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the
welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of
all federal outlays in that year.
A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement
programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries
are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested
welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.
Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits
and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value
of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet
the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs
or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have
lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to
native-born Americans.
The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is
substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare
to native-born Americans.
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates
The Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank that appears to be
defending welfare programs (for immigrants). Normally, one would think
that's something that the left wing would be doing. So, I can't help
but wonder why the right-wing likes immigration so much. Let's see . .
. could it be that they like the cheap labor?
I am a card carrying member of the right-wing. If I was in the
restaurant business, I sure wouldn't want an Irishman making my tacos
and burritos. We just had some roof and drywall work done -- entirely
Latino labor. I have no interest in deporting law abiding illegals
already here. Give them a green card. But, we have enough! Build the
Damn Wall and end birthright for non-residents!! BTW -- it's not just
cheap labor, it's high quality, hard working, conscientious labor.
It's only "high quality, hard working, conscientious labor with
first-generation immigrants from third-world countries. After that, as
subsequent generations integrate into our system, new
first-generation immigrants are required to keep the cheap-labor
gimmick going; in other words, it's a Ponzi scheme.

Probably he best way to get around that problem is like they do it in
Saudi Arabia. They issue temporary work permits. However, I don't
think that blacks would like that very much and neither would
Democrats because temporary workers can't vote.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-12-05 14:33:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mg
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 23:26:42 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:23:58 -0800 (PST), b flanier
Post by b flanier
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:42:29 PM UTC-7,werner posted
more of his bias BS.
The federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the
welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of
all federal outlays in that year.
A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement
programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries
are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested
welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.
Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits
and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value
of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet
the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs
or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have
lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to
native-born Americans.
The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is
substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare
to native-born Americans.
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates
The Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank that appears to be
defending welfare programs (for immigrants). Normally, one would think
that's something that the left wing would be doing. So, I can't help
but wonder why the right-wing likes immigration so much. Let's see . .
. could it be that they like the cheap labor?
I am a card carrying member of the right-wing. If I was in the
restaurant business, I sure wouldn't want an Irishman making my tacos
and burritos. We just had some roof and drywall work done -- entirely
Latino labor. I have no interest in deporting law abiding illegals
already here. Give them a green card. But, we have enough! Build the
Damn Wall and end birthright for non-residents!! BTW -- it's not just
cheap labor, it's high quality, hard working, conscientious labor.
It's only "high quality, hard working, conscientious labor with
first-generation immigrants from third-world countries. After that, as
subsequent generations integrate into our system, new
first-generation immigrants are required to keep the cheap-labor
gimmick going; in other words, it's a Ponzi scheme.
Probably he best way to get around that problem is like they do it in
Saudi Arabia. They issue temporary work permits. However, I don't
think that blacks would like that very much and neither would
Democrats because temporary workers can't vote.
Most black people in the USA are native-born citizens.
Their ancestors came from Africa, but white people's
ancestors came from Europe. "Native-born" means
"born in the USA", or at least to "born in the USA to
people who have legal standing to be in the USA", not
depending on which continent their more remote
ancestors came from.
mg
2018-12-05 17:24:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 23:26:42 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:23:58 -0800 (PST), b flanier
Post by b flanier
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:42:29 PM UTC-7,werner posted
more of his bias BS.
The federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the
welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of
all federal outlays in that year.
A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement
programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries
are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested
welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.
Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits
and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value
of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet
the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs
or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have
lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to
native-born Americans.
The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is
substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare
to native-born Americans.
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates
The Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank that appears to be
defending welfare programs (for immigrants). Normally, one would think
that's something that the left wing would be doing. So, I can't help
but wonder why the right-wing likes immigration so much. Let's see . .
. could it be that they like the cheap labor?
I am a card carrying member of the right-wing. If I was in the
restaurant business, I sure wouldn't want an Irishman making my tacos
and burritos. We just had some roof and drywall work done -- entirely
Latino labor. I have no interest in deporting law abiding illegals
already here. Give them a green card. But, we have enough! Build the
Damn Wall and end birthright for non-residents!! BTW -- it's not just
cheap labor, it's high quality, hard working, conscientious labor.
It's only "high quality, hard working, conscientious labor with
first-generation immigrants from third-world countries. After that, as
subsequent generations integrate into our system, new
first-generation immigrants are required to keep the cheap-labor
gimmick going; in other words, it's a Ponzi scheme.
Probably he best way to get around that problem is like they do it in
Saudi Arabia. They issue temporary work permits. However, I don't
think that blacks would like that very much and neither would
Democrats because temporary workers can't vote.
Most black people in the USA are native-born citizens.
Their ancestors came from Africa, but white people's
ancestors came from Europe. "Native-born" means
"born in the USA", or at least to "born in the USA to
people who have legal standing to be in the USA", not
depending on which continent their more remote
ancestors came from.
I'm not sure if I said what I meant, but what I meant to say was that
I don't think black people would like it very much if fast-food
corporations and retailers and restaurants, etc., hired Mexicans as
temporary workers from Mexico.

On the other hand, I doubt if very many people would mind if farmers
hired temporary workers to work in their fields.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-12-05 21:36:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 23:26:42 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:23:58 -0800 (PST), b flanier
Post by b flanier
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:42:29 PM UTC-7,werner posted
more of his bias BS.
The federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the
welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of
all federal outlays in that year.
A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement
programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries
are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested
welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.
Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits
and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value
of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet
the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs
or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have
lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to
native-born Americans.
The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is
substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare
to native-born Americans.
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates
The Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank that appears to be
defending welfare programs (for immigrants). Normally, one would think
that's something that the left wing would be doing. So, I can't help
but wonder why the right-wing likes immigration so much. Let's see . .
. could it be that they like the cheap labor?
I am a card carrying member of the right-wing. If I was in the
restaurant business, I sure wouldn't want an Irishman making my tacos
and burritos. We just had some roof and drywall work done -- entirely
Latino labor. I have no interest in deporting law abiding illegals
already here. Give them a green card. But, we have enough! Build the
Damn Wall and end birthright for non-residents!! BTW -- it's not just
cheap labor, it's high quality, hard working, conscientious labor.
It's only "high quality, hard working, conscientious labor with
first-generation immigrants from third-world countries. After that, as
subsequent generations integrate into our system, new
first-generation immigrants are required to keep the cheap-labor
gimmick going; in other words, it's a Ponzi scheme.
Probably he best way to get around that problem is like they do it in
Saudi Arabia. They issue temporary work permits. However, I don't
think that blacks would like that very much and neither would
Democrats because temporary workers can't vote.
Most black people in the USA are native-born citizens.
Their ancestors came from Africa, but white people's
ancestors came from Europe. "Native-born" means
"born in the USA", or at least to "born in the USA to
people who have legal standing to be in the USA", not
depending on which continent their more remote
ancestors came from.
I'm not sure if I said what I meant, but what I meant to say was that
I don't think black people would like it very much if fast-food
corporations and retailers and restaurants, etc., hired Mexicans as
temporary workers from Mexico.
On the other hand, I doubt if very many people would mind if farmers
hired temporary workers to work in their fields.
That's OK as long as Americans are in control of the
transition, and not expected to take on anything that's
thrust on them then adjust as best they can.

I'm in a peculiar position, since I'm not an American
citizen but I've lived in the USA nearly all my life, and
my interests are in line with those of native-born
Americans.
Gary
2018-12-05 22:31:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 23:26:42 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
I am a card carrying member of the right-wing. If I was in the
restaurant business, I sure wouldn't want an Irishman making my tacos
and burritos. We just had some roof and drywall work done -- entirely
Latino labor. I have no interest in deporting law abiding illegals
already here. Give them a green card. But, we have enough! Build the
Damn Wall and end birthright for non-residents!! BTW -- it's not just
cheap labor, it's high quality, hard working, conscientious labor.
It's only "high quality, hard working, conscientious labor with
first-generation immigrants from third-world countries. After that, as
subsequent generations integrate into our system, new
first-generation immigrants are required to keep the cheap-labor
gimmick going; in other words, it's a Ponzi scheme.
Probably he best way to get around that problem is like they do it in
Saudi Arabia. They issue temporary work permits. However, I don't
think that blacks would like that very much and neither would
Democrats because temporary workers can't vote.
Most black people in the USA are native-born citizens.
Their ancestors came from Africa, but white people's
ancestors came from Europe. "Native-born" means
"born in the USA", or at least to "born in the USA to
people who have legal standing to be in the USA", not
depending on which continent their more remote
ancestors came from.
I'm not sure if I said what I meant, but what I meant to say was that
I don't think black people would like it very much if fast-food
corporations and retailers and restaurants, etc., hired Mexicans as
temporary workers from Mexico.
On the other hand, I doubt if very many people would mind if farmers
hired temporary workers to work in their fields.
Large farmers are lucky they live in the age of the mechanical farm equipment. They
would have a lot of trouble finding people to plant and harvest their crops -- in this day
and age.
El Castor
2018-12-05 23:36:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mg
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 23:26:42 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:23:58 -0800 (PST), b flanier
Post by b flanier
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:42:29 PM UTC-7,werner posted
more of his bias BS.
The federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the
welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of
all federal outlays in that year.
A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement
programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries
are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested
welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.
Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits
and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value
of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet
the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs
or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have
lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to
native-born Americans.
The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is
substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare
to native-born Americans.
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates
The Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank that appears to be
defending welfare programs (for immigrants). Normally, one would think
that's something that the left wing would be doing. So, I can't help
but wonder why the right-wing likes immigration so much. Let's see . .
. could it be that they like the cheap labor?
I am a card carrying member of the right-wing. If I was in the
restaurant business, I sure wouldn't want an Irishman making my tacos
and burritos. We just had some roof and drywall work done -- entirely
Latino labor. I have no interest in deporting law abiding illegals
already here. Give them a green card. But, we have enough! Build the
Damn Wall and end birthright for non-residents!! BTW -- it's not just
cheap labor, it's high quality, hard working, conscientious labor.
It's only "high quality, hard working, conscientious labor with
first-generation immigrants from third-world countries. After that, as
subsequent generations integrate into our system, new
first-generation immigrants are required to keep the cheap-labor
gimmick going; in other words, it's a Ponzi scheme.
Maybe to a degree, but basically I doubt that. The smarter self
starting Latinos pulled up stakes to come here and work. Besides being
a bit smarter than those who stayed behind, I suspect that they are
genetically motivated to work to improve their lot in life. Genetics
doesn't just contribute to intelligence, it also influences
personality.
Post by mg
Probably he best way to get around that problem is like they do it in
Saudi Arabia. They issue temporary work permits. However, I don't
think that blacks would like that very much and neither would
Democrats because temporary workers can't vote.
Good point, but as robotics increasingly replaces truck drivers,
factory workers and tomato pickers I expect that in the not too
distant future we will not have much need for more manual labor. The
world is changing fast.
Gary
2018-12-05 15:10:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:23:58 -0800 (PST), b flanier
Post by b flanier
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:42:29 PM UTC-7,werner posted
more of his bias BS.
The federal government spent about $2.3 trillion in 2016 on the
welfare state, an amount equal to approximately 60 percent of
all federal outlays in that year.
A full $1.5 trillion of those expenditures went to the entitlement
programs of Social Security and Medicare, whose intended beneficiaries
are the elderly, while the other $800 billion went to means-tested
welfare benefits, whose intended beneficiaries are the poor.
Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits
and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value
of benefits than native-born Americans. Immigrants who meet
the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs
or poverty for the means-tested welfare programs generally have
lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to
native-born Americans.
The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is
substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare
to native-born Americans.
https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates
The Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank that appears to be
defending welfare programs (for immigrants). Normally, one would think
that's something that the left wing would be doing. So, I can't help
but wonder why the right-wing likes immigration so much. Let's see . .
. could it be that they like the cheap labor?
I am a card carrying member of the right-wing. If I was in the
restaurant business, I sure wouldn't want an Irishman making my tacos
and burritos. We just had some roof and drywall work done -- entirely
Latino labor. I have no interest in deporting law abiding illegals
already here. Give them a green card. But, we have enough! Build the
Damn Wall and end birthright for non-residents!! BTW -- it's not just
cheap labor, it's high quality, hard working, conscientious labor.
I second that motion ! Here in Georgia (away from Atlanta) I don't see many
immigrants. The few I have ever talked with are very decent people. I would not want
to see them deported. But .... we do not need any more !
Loading...