Public Charges Beware

Author: bmdrocks21
Immigration

Posts

Total: 56
#31
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
consistent enforcement of broken, draconian laws.
no one is entitled to come to the U.S. especially illegally, every country has similar laws yet you think they are draconian?
Literally none of them advocate for open borders. 
yeah you could be right
Tulsi Gabbard: 'It's fair' to say 2020 Democrats advocate for 'open borders'
how about a liberally biased source?
Most 2020 Democrats have now embraced decriminalizing illegal border crossings, a policy that the liberal website Vox calls “the most radical immigration idea in the 2020 primary.”

Immigration just relies on people living their lives.
no it relies on them contributing more than they are taking as to not be a drain on citizens.
It could be racism, it could just be a hatred of poor people or the idea of community in general.
ahhh there we go, your true colors show, when all else fails call people racist, classic leftist tactic, you are so typical.
You are assuming that workers making a living wage would drive up all prices. That simply isn't true. 
I disagree with your opinion.  costs are costs, businesses are in business to make money and not just eat their cost of production or operations.
if those owners want to keep their skilled laborers, then they would need to pay more.
which is what has already been happening right?  Many businesses have had to increase wages to get employees, however at some breaking point they will raise prices or close shop.
Unions were useful once, now they are just corrupt business killers, very sad, I was in a union and very pro union.





#32
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
no one is entitled to come to the U.S. especially illegally, every country has similar laws yet you think they are draconian?
every country has laws about who can and cannot come into it. That is normal, no one is arguing it should be otherwise. The problems in america is that the methods to enter the country legally are convoluted. You have to jump through tons of hoops, know the right people, or have the money to pay for ridiculously prices lawyers. The US system forces people who would love to be able to come legally to become illegals because there simply is no path they can take to do it legally. 

 Tulsi Gabbard: 'It's fair' to say 2020 Democrats advocate for 'open borders'
lol she literally says "I don’t — I don’t support open borders". do you even read your sources?

Most 2020 Democrats have now embraced decriminalizing illegal border crossings
that's true. But that has nothing to do with open borders. They could still be detained and would still be deported. It just wouldn't specifically be a criminal offense. This would remove the justification for the abuse, family separations and deaths that have occurred in ICE facilities. But that is definitely not an open border. 

no it relies on them contributing more than they are taking as to not be a drain on citizens.
And even if the 1st generation do not achieve that, studies prove that all subsequent generations do. So it is an investment that virtually always pays off if you are willing to look more than 10 or 20 years down the road. 

ahhh there we go, your true colors show, when all else fails call people racist, classic leftist tactic, you are so typical.
I said i couldn't be certain. You like to discriminate against foreigners, you like to discriminate against the poor too. so it's hard to say where exactly your bigotry/hate comes from. 

I disagree with your opinion.  costs are costs, businesses are in business to make money and not just eat their cost of production or operations.
lol that is so overly simplified that it's sad. If i said living things are living things, so a human and a Banana are exactly the same, it would have the same validity as the point you are trying to make. 

if those owners want to keep their skilled laborers, then they would need to pay more.
which is what has already been happening right?  Many businesses have had to increase wages to get employees
no, no it has not. Wages have been stagnant for years now while corporate profits are way up. The destruction of unions in america has put all the power in the hands of employers so the vast majority simply refuse to increase wages. 

Unions were useful once, now they are just corrupt business killers, very sad, I was in a union and very pro union.
There are very few unions left. The government along with big business crushed many of them into the dirt. So now they are free to suppress wages, lower safety standards and abuse workers as much as the law will allow. 
#33
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@HistoryBuff
You like to discriminate against foreigners, you like to discriminate against the poor too.
you know what you can fk off with you libel accusations.

Topic's author
#34
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Woah there. We all know that if you are against giant spending proposals, it must be because you hate the poor.

If you are against public charge immigrants, it must be because you hate people who don't look like you. Fiscal responsibility is just a dog whistle for anti-poor anti-white policies

XD   
#35
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
you know what you can fk off with you libel accusations.
lol you are ashamed of your constant attacks on people who can't defend themselves so you attack others who point them out. That is right on point for you. 


#36
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@bmdrocks21
right because some dumb-asses can't see their own bigotry for thinking all immigrants are the same color/race, the projection would be laughable except it's really sad instead of funny.
if people don't want to keep their money they are free to do with it what they wish, I shouldn't be forced under penalty of the government to support illegals whatever their color or nationally is, my money is already stolen from me to support many who don't want to support themselves.

it's my own fault for engaging him.
Topic's author
#37
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@blamonkey
Few contentions:

(Cato institute is libertarian and very pro-open borders). That isn't necessarily discrediting them, but I couldn't find a very important distinction that they may have used to manipulate their findings: whether the statistic is for immigrant-led households or just immigrants. Because children of immigrants here would be considered "native-born", but they wouldn't be here without the initial immigrant. So, I find that 'immigrant-led households' is a more accurate statistic.

This says that 51% of immigrant-led households receive welfare benefits, while 30% of native households receive them. 

Also, I would have been fine if he just increased wait times for immigrants to ALL welfare programs to 10 years to be enough for me, personally. That would aid with the backlogging issue and prevent further costs. Although, taking in less immigrants in general could achieve similar results, I'm sure. Not too against that considering they aren't assimilating very well, with English proficiency- just over 50% are English proficient.
26,000,000(half) speak English less than "very well". https://cis.org/Report/Almost-Half-Speak-Foreign-Language-Americas-Largest-Cities
They also have less economic assimilation as a result.

Surely we should encourage immigrants who are willing to work to emigrate to the US.

Maybe we should or maybe we shouldn't. If they get a job that makes so little that they don't pay income taxes and they use multiple forms of welfare, then they shouldn't be let in. Just because they want to work doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to allow them in.

Also, by deterring immigrants to enter through legal pathways into the US, we increase the chance that they use coyotes, (human smugglers with unmatched knowledge of our border policies) to enter the US illegally. Many of these coyotes are on the payroll of Mexican cartels, and supply millions of dollars in revenue to their perfidious employers 
Well, that is a concern no matter what your immigration restrictions are. Unless you have open borders and remain a place where people want to be, coyotes will be a problem. Perhaps we should let all of the immigrants in, bankrupt us, and then they won't want to come here anymore.....? :^)

But for real, we could use some more border security. It could help with the flow of drugs as well as any increased illegal immigration. Two birds with one stone. 

Perhaps the benefits of such a program will manifest in the coming years, but a healthy dose of skepticism is never bad per se.
Yeah, I definitely appreciate the input! Having more workers does help an economy expand, but at the same time, saving money that would be spent on hundreds of thousands of more immigrants would be better spent on increasing our current human capital in my opinion. More infrastructure investment and perhaps more grants would be best?
#38
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
And how many 2nd generation immigrant families are on welfare?
Very, very many. Too many. How many 2nd generation morons are terrorists? Same answer.

How much value to do those immigrants add to society?
Not much. None if you deduct their cost to society.
#39
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->@Historybuff

you know what you can fk off with you libel accusations.
lol you are ashamed of your constant attacks on people who can't defend themselves so you attack others who point them out. That is right on point for you. 
Can't block everyone can you muftar?

Calling for fiscal responsibility is not an attack, but calling everyone racist is.

You really need a safe space. Lol
#40
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@bmdrocks21

Whilethe CATO Institute is biased, I contend that CIS is as bad if not worse. The CISis surreptitiously cloaked in a scholarly demeanor but is known to fail fact-checkslike WoW addicts fail to be productive members of society. On one occasion, the conservative Heritage Foundation criticized theCIS and its analysis (1). These numerical gaffes (or intentional misinformationdepending on your opinion of the organization and its goal) also extends toimmigration welfare. A 2007 CIS analysis posited that immigrants disproportionatelybenefitted from welfare programs. Yet:

"once 'welfare usage' is disaggregated, as Camarota does in a table nearthe end of his report, we see that food assistance is the only category inwhich there is a significant difference between immigrant- and native-headedhouseholds. Immigrants are significantly less likely than natives to useMedicaid, and they use subsidized housing and cash assistance programs at aboutthe same (low) rate as natives" (2).

These views are not surprising at all given the history of the organization. JohnTanton, one of the co-founders of CIS, has spent the latter part of his lifefighting against most immigration policies. He repeatedly claims the importanceof a European-American majority (3), has advocated for eugenics, and funded hisnumerous organization (FAIR, NumbersUSA, CIS,) through the Pioneer Fund (5). Thelast of which is interesting considering that the Pioneer Fund was in part inspiredby the Nazi party’s eugenics experiment, and one person’s recollection that “wishedto prove simply that Negroes were inferior” (4). This attitude is mimicked bythe CIS too. In one report, they refer to foreign women as “third-world golddiggers” (6) which to me sounds like idiotic dross that would brand anyorganization that uses it as unreliable.


Oh, I do suppose that the organization is independent,despite being funded by Tanton and with hand-picked members serving in advisoryroles who agree with his position.

Should this discredit them? I don’t know. I will say that even if the CATO Instituteis biased, it carries less monocle-popping controversial baggage than the troublinghistory of the CIS.

Now, onto the actual meat of the objection. The CIS does usedata concerning immigrant households. I’ll keep the fact that previous reportsfrom the organization undermine this study and address the argument you made aboutimmigrants causing the birth of children. While technically a child would notexist without a biological mother and father, it’s presumptuous to assume thatthe non-immigrant mother or father wouldn’t have made children with someoneelse if it weren’t for the immigrant. The CATO institute even addresses thedifference in their study. They offer a few rejoinders to the CIS methodology, includingthe fact that the recipient for the largest welfare programs (SSI, Medicare, Medicaidetc.) is not the family but the recipient.  

You offer a few studies that indicate that immigrants areunable to speak English. Your Pew research doesn’t mention that the data isbased off survey data. The Limited English Proficiency test is a survey thatasks participants to rank their grasp of English as “not at all” “not well” “well”or “very well.” Participants who only speak English at home and answer thattheir grasp of English is “well” are the only one’s considered proficient (7)(8). Why can’t people who speak the language “well” qualify as English proficient?I also find it weird that the LEP’s target population of study happens to be thoseaged 5 and up. That is a wide range of people to be testing.



#41
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@bmdrocks21

Even if the limited English proficiency of illegalimmigrants was true, it doesn’t seem to have a significant impact. Immigrants havea propensity to take jobs that aren’t in direct competition with native-bornpeople (9 pg 266). While it is true that many immigrants are not paying incometax because their pay is so low, it is also true that employers are payingpayroll taxes to the government, that immigrants need to purchase food, water,and medicine which bolsters business growth and could add jobs to the laborforce, and that immigrant entrepreneurs have had considerable success increating profitable small businesses (10). A holistic analysis from the NationalAcademies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine found that the total fiscalstimulus of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants was over$200 billion dollars in tax revenue (11). Admittedly, there was a cost incurredwhen calculating the fiscal contributions of the first-generation immigrant,which was roughly ¼ of the stimulus provided by second and third generationimmigrants. However, as the study notes:

“An immigrant and a native-born person with similar characteristics will likelyhave about the same fiscal impact. Persons with higher levels of educationcontribute more positively to government finances regardless of theirgenerational status. Furthermore, within age and education categories,immigrants generally have a more salutary effect on budgets because they aredisqualified from some benefit programs and because their children tend to havehigher levels of education, earnings, and tax paying than the children ofsimilar third-plus generation adults” (11).


You claim that taking in less legal immigrants could lessenthe burden on the USCIS. This doesn’t address the issues related to the bloatedbureaucracy, increased Requests for Evidence, and the lack of manpower. Also,placing a limit on those entering the US does not address renewals, naturalizationsetc. If we streamlined the process to get into the US legally, there would beless people hopping the border or overstaying their visa. After 1965, when theUS placed its first static cap on immigration, illegal immigration flourishedbecause legal entry was impossible, and Mexico’s fiscal situation drove people tofind a better life elsewhere (12). We don’t need to enact an open-border policy.We need a process that doesn’t require as many complex and redundant forms. Weneed a non-static cap on work visas that can adjust to the demand for them. Weneed a USCIS that doesn’t take 14 years to get back to potential applicants totell them that they wasted over $1,000 in fees to enter the US (13).



As far as more infrastructure spending, I’m in two mindsabout it. Most infrastructure projects invariably exceed their fundingestimates. That said, they can also create jobs, investment, and other thingsthat economists and business tycoons froth in the mouth over. I hope I don’t comeoff as too pointed. I wrote this after a particularly annoying family member decidedto shriek for 20-30 minutes about politics and drink irresponsibly. That seemsto be all he does.




P.S. You may have inspired me to debate this soon.
#42
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
The SCOTUS just voted 5-4, along ideological lines, to allow new changes to legal immigration. It will allow immigration officials to take into consideration whether or not a legal immigrant will become a public charge and rely on public assistance.
Isn't always based on ideological lines?

Can you explain the second sentence in a different way? 
This seems rather pragmatic to me: why would you let someone in the country who will end up costing you money?
I am sure you are pro-government instead of against-government since you do accept stuff that costs people money like taxes that go into the military. Do you agree?
We are a country, not a charity, and being a charity is precisely why we are racking up trillions in debt.
A country can be charitable to its citizens right? 
Do you understand no one politically effective cares about the debt?



Topic's author
#43
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Isn't always based on ideological lines?

9-0 decisions are fairly common. Sometimes it is just a matter of law and "liberal" or "conservative" ideas don't really apply.

Can you explain the second sentence in a different way? 
It will allow those in charge of giving out "green cards" some more discretion. If they believe that someone, after they become a citizen, will use welfare, they now have the ability to not grant them citizenship. A "public charge" is someone who costs the country (in tax dollars) more than they contribute.

I am sure you are pro-government instead of against-government since you do accept stuff that costs people money like taxes that go into the military. Do you agree?
I think that we are currently spending too much on the military. Without a military, you can't have a country, so I guess I am "pro-government" in the sense that I am not an anarchist....

A country can be charitable to its citizens right? 

I don't really think so. I think a person can be charitable to another person. However, with taxes, the "country" is spending other people's money and therefore I don't consider it charitable.

Do you understand no one politically effective cares about the debt?
Yeah.... There are people that care about it, just not enough to actually do something about it.
#44
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
9-0 decisions are fairly common. Sometimes it is just a matter of law and "liberal" or "conservative" ideas don't really apply.
Then why say "along ideological lines"?
Do you have a better link as in past supreme court decisions?
It will allow those in charge of giving out "green cards" some more discretion. If they believe that someone, after they become a citizen, will use welfare, they now have the ability to not grant them citizenship. A "public charge" is someone who costs the country (in tax dollars) more than they contribute.
What are you basing someone's contribution on?
I think that we are currently spending too much on the military. Without a military, you can't have a country, so I guess I am "pro-government" in the sense that I am not an anarchist....
Why use the words cost money instead of why waste money on something not useful?
I don't really think so. I think a person can be charitable to another person. However, with taxes, the "country" is spending other people's money and therefore I don't consider it charitable.
"other people's money" is a mis-characterization. People who pay taxes will be the ones benefiting from the services.

Do you consider veterans getting medical care charity from the government? 
Yeah.... There are people that care about it, just not enough to actually do something about it.
Then why appeal on the debt side?
#45
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@bmdrocks21
I don't know why my response lacked spaces. Hopefully it is readable

Topic's author
#46
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@blamonkey
Yeah, I have been getting walls of text lol, but I'll get around to it.
Topic's author
#47
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Then why say "along ideological lines"?
Do you have a better link as in past supreme court decisions?

<br>
I said "ideological lines" because the more controversial and divisive decisions are generally the close votes. Those are based more on either a traditional or revisionist interpretation.


Generally, it is over 50%, but it can go downwards to 10% in a year. Recently, it has reached 90% and this doesn't even include close decisions like 8-1 or 7-2 decisions, so it appears that it is rare to be very split.

What are you basing someone's contribution on?
Tax contribution. Or, in rare cases, they could have spill-over effects, but that is incredibly difficult to track. 

Why use the words cost money instead of why waste money on something not useful?
I could have. I view this particular "cost" as a wasteful one, which I tried to explain through the context of my overall message.

"other people's money" is a mis-characterization. People who pay taxes will be the ones benefiting from the services.

Do you consider veterans getting medical care charity from the government? 
Sure, some may pay sales taxes and other such things, but they likely won't pay income taxes for being super poor. Since they take more than they pay, and we also have the ability to prevent them from entering the country, I think we should do so.

Well, veterans have sacrificed a lot for our country. I guess this could be another manner of "contribution" that you mentioned earlier. We also pay them very little compared to the amount of risk and the importance of their work. So, I am fine with providing them with some benefits other than just money.

Then why appeal on the debt side?

I am appealing to individuals on this website on that viewpoint. There are lots of people who are both liberals and conservatives who have very serious concerns about the debt here. It will likely become a bigger issue in the future if we don't get it under control soon.
Topic's author
#48
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@blamonkey
Dang, you're using two biased sources to discredit my biased source. That isn't allowed!

While CIS is likely biased, they got their data that I was referencing from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, which is conducted by the Census Bureau. That is a 2007 article that he didn't link, and the data from my CIS article appears to be from 2009 and 2012. 

And about that point on them being inspired by Nazi eugenics, I'd happily point you towards Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. ;)

But anyway, just by looking at the data from the Census, not their likely biased interpretation, it tells the same story that I have.

Table A10 shows how many households use welfare based on number of children. (This will be in order of children 1-4+ and is if the family uses any form of welfare at all).

Native: 51.1%, 47.8%, 60.3%, 69.4%
Immigrant:  70.6%, 71.3%, 87.8%, 93.7%

I don't know the specific terminology for what qualifies as "well" vs "very well". I'm going to guess "well" means you can function but with some difficulties. Regardless, it said that immigrants make up 82% of Americans that don't speak English very well vs 18% native. I wished it said what percent of those were second-generation immigrants who are children of those with LEP. I thought 5 years old and up was a little weird, but I will assume they have different qualifications based on age lol.


Also, about the "the non-immigrant would have had kids with someone else".... is there a specific statistic that shows how many of the families are half-immigrant half-native parents? I will also have to check out the claim of the parents being the biggest recipient of the welfare programs, because dependents are added to the calculation of if you are below the poverty line and all of that. Some programs, like school lunches, are also specifically for kids.


I will get to the second message when I get some more time.
#49
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,869
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@bmdrocks21
@HistoryBuff
That "Statue Poem" was written in 1883, long before America decided to become a welfare state after FDR. 

That poem would never have been written in a welfare state.
"Open Border" was never trendy at any point in history until it became something new to spin as anti-Trump in the spirit of Orangemanbad.

Literally ZERO politicians in either party advocated open borders encompassing immigration with zero merit controls or criminal checks before Trump trolled them into a corner.

(including Bernie Sanders)
Topic's author
#50
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@blamonkey
Now you propose that we immigrants are taking jobs we don't want. But that is because Americans, in a sense, are spoiled. They want more money for the same job. People say Americans don't want to work in those plants with chickens, farms, etc. But one chicken processing plant was raided and they lost 75% of their workforce. Then they advertised higher wages and Americans filled the jobs. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

Furthermore, we have a pretty dreadful labor force participation rate compared to other first-world nations. https://data.oecd.org/emp/labour-force-participation-rate.htm

Perhaps that is because immigrant workers reduce our wages, especially when they arrive in large amounts. An interesting study about a large influx of Cuban immigrants called the "Mariel Boat Lift" describes how the Cuban immigrants, many of them high-school-educated or lower, decreased the wages of native workers with similar education levels by 10-30%. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0019793917692945 If we had less immigration, perhaps native disaffected workers would start taking many of those job openings for which you believe immigrants need to fill. 

While yes, employers are paying taxes on their employees, these payroll taxes are taken as a percentage of income, so they are paying much less in that respect by hiring non-native workers. People need to eat regardless of where they are, so had they stayed in their home country, they could have consumed our exports and medicine. 

There are many immigrants, as you say, that provide new job opportunities. But, although your source doesn't mention it, I'd wager that they are college-educated immigrants. That is because they mentioned high-skilled workers, which generally wouldn't include many of the non-college-educated immigrants that we are accepting today. I'm fine with accepting educated immigrants, as they are unlikely to be public charges and do provide many jobs.

I thought this was an interesting line that you quoted: "more salutary effect on budgets because they are disqualified from some benefit programs"
Yet you seem to think it is a bad idea to exclude them from welfare programs. I believed you described it as "draconian". Like I said, I would be fine with just extending the length and breadth of the disqualifications. I think that would be a decent deterrent to "public charges" even wanting to come here.

I agree that the 1965 Hart Celler Act was terrible. Now we get most of our immigration from third-world countries with terrible educational and economic institutions who cost us billions of dollars in welfare expenditures. Although, we had much stricter quotas on Mexican immigrants, but we have seen a lot of increases in Mexican illegal immigration since then, so I'm not sure that this was entirely the cause. 

It would be nice to get rid of bloated bureaucracy sure, but at the cost of having much less information about who you are letting into your country. I don't think it should be entirely complicated as to proving if they are a public charge. Learning about their education, work skills, previous work experience, etc is all you really need to know. If they are unskilled and uneducated, they are likely to be a public charge. End of story.

I am sorry to hear about your disruptive family member. That must have been unpleasant. 
#51
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@bmdrocks21
Dang, you're using two biased sources to discredit my biased source. That isn't allowed!

While CIS is likely biased, they got their data that I was referencing from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, which is conducted by the Census Bureau. That is a 2007 article that he didn't link, and the data from my CIS article appears to be from 2009 and 2012. 

And about that point on them being inspired by Nazi eugenics, I'd happily point you towards Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood. ;)

I never brought up Planned Parenthood. Although, since we are comparing organizations, it should be noted that Tanton's influence was far greater than that of Sanger. The common attack against Sanger is her alleged support for "black genocide" (which is funny given her support for the civil rights movement.) Does that match with the actual data? Not really. White people are more likely to have abortions when compared to other races. (1). Besides, Planned Parenthood offers more services than abortions. Planned Parenthood clinics offer medical services including early screenings for cancer. On the other hand, the CIS, FAIR, and NumbersUSA are all inextricably linked to Tanton and his ideology. He handpicked people to lead his numerous organizations. If we are comparing sources, the fact that conservative publications criticize the CIS is indicative of how untrustworthy the source actually is. The numerous fact-checks that basically invalidate large swaths of their research from reputable sources (including people who actually study immigration for a living) also speaks to the level of academic rigor they use in their research. I brought this up originally because of your criticisms of the CATO Institute, which I agree with. Most think-tanks are biased toward their causes and those investing in them. Yet, the CATO Institute's record is less spotty than that of the CIS. Think of it like a bruised apple. CATO may represent a fruit with a few dents and bruises, but its still edible. If the CIS were an apple, it would resemble a lush, delectable apple, but once you peel back the skin you would realize that it is filled with maggots, cheese, and the ashes of a dead relative.

Incidentally, the study you cited wasn't the Census Bureau's survey. What you cited was a CIS analysis of the Census Bureau's study, which relied on a faulty methodology (i.e. households instead of individuals). The DHS came to a different conclusion when sifting through the SIPP data (2). It wasn't a minute difference either.

"Relative to DHS’ estimates, CIS estimates that native‐born welfare use rates are an average of 95 percent higher, foreign‐born use rates are an average of 173 percent higher, and non‐citizen use rates are an average of 208 percent higher" (2).
 
Also, both studies only looked at data for one year. The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine evidence I provided earlier demonstrated how over a period of three years, immigrants added more to the economy than they took away. If you want a valid authority on immigration, they would be the ones to talk to. P.S. that table 10 you cite comes from the CIS analysis of the data provided by the SIPP, not the actual data-set itself. 

I don't know the specific terminology for what qualifies as "well" vs "very well". I'm going to guess "well" means you can function but with some difficulties. Regardless, it said that immigrants make up 82% of Americans that don't speak English very well vs 18% native. I wished it said what percent of those were second-generation immigrants who are children of those with LEP. I thought 5 years old and up was a little weird, but I will assume they have different qualifications based on age lol.

The people who deliver the test don't specify the difference between "well" and "very well," so its not like you're alone here. This is the process for collecting the data you talked about. Its still in use today.


Census counts are broad-based and consistent indefinition; however, information on LEP status is collected based on responses to two questions: language(s) used inthe home; and reported ability to speak English. Respondents are asked to rate household members' Englishspeaking ability on the following scale: "very well," "well," "not very well," and "not at all." Such distinctions mayDefining the Limited-English Proficient Student Population.be difficult for non-native speakers to make; thus, the reliability of this information is questionable (Hopstock, P.and Bucaro, B., 1993). In addition, basing limited-English proficiency status on speaking ability alone does notaccount for those individuals who may speak English well but who are limited in their ability to read and writeEnglish. School-based approaches, on the other hand, tend to use more sophisticated methods of identifying LEPstatus (i.e., detailed assessment measures) but do not consistently apply any standard of what it means to be a LEPstudent due to varying state and local definitions (Hopstock, P. and Bucaro, B., 1993). (3)
That doesn't seem like a good system to me. I doubt that toddlers are being asked these questions, but the individual perception of a mom or dad is not an accurate predictor of whether a child is English proficient. If someone became a native speaker of France and had a child, how would they know if the child is proficient in French compared to the average 5 or 10 year old French speaker? 


Also, about the "the non-immigrant would have had kids with someone else".... is there a specific statistic that shows how many of the families are half-immigrant half-native parents? I will also have to check out the claim of the parents being the biggest recipient of the welfare programs, because dependents are added to the calculation of if you are below the poverty line and all of that. Some programs, like school lunches, are also specifically for kids.
About 4 million children have one foreign born and one native parent. 13 million have only foreign born parents. So, out of all marriages involving foreign born people in the US, about 24% include both foreign born and native parents (4). That's more than enough to not lump people together in "households" instead of using individual immigrant data. Also, remember that this rule mostly targets green-card holders. Congress requires most green card holders to have a financial sponsor (usually a spouse) who can demonstrate future sustainable income at about 125% of the poverty line (6). When parsing the data, the DHS found that when calculating SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, TANF, and other programs, the rate of usage between foreign born citizens and natives were equal (20.9%) (5 table 11). It doesn't seem that the public charge rule addresses school lunches at all. As noted by Boundless, even under the new rules, the DHS would not penalize LPR for benefits conferred to the spouse or child (6).


It's an interesting discussion, and I do hope that I don't come off as irate. I honestly like having discussions when I am not being accused of being a Nazi, SJW, Communist, or sociopath. Political identities are a cancer in my book, and I can't stand this "savage" mentality that people have where they "roast the libtards/cuckservatives/trumpanzees or whatever." It's like I'm back in middle school, and I abhorred middle school and ever god-damn lump of flesh masquerading as a "student" or "teacher" when in reality they were mosquitoes that sucked the will to live out of people instead of blood. 








I had to leave after writing that to binge some caffeine and painkillers. Sorry about that, I think I snapped briefly. 


I might not be able to get back to you any time soon due to school (and my mental psyche), but I did want to address one more study because it is actually one I am familiar with due to my experiences in academic debate.

The Borjas study you mentioned is predicated on some bizarre methodology. It relies on two Census studies, and the one with the larger sample size found a less measurable impact on "crowding out." Women were excluded from the study under the justification that their wages were increasing, while the author outright ignored the oil shock, influx of narcodollars, and recessions that could have contributed to the decline of high-school dropout wages (7). A 2016 study from UC Davis verified these complaints when they conducted a similar analysis on the impact of Cuban migrants and found the following:


Analyzing wages and unemployment rates we find nosignificant departure between Miami and its control between 1980 and 1983. Usingthe March-CPS data, however, one could find negative wage effects in small subsamples after 1979 as pointed out in George Borjas (2015a). However those estimatesare imprecise and very sensitive to the choice of sample and of the outcome variable (8).

At best, the data is inconclusive. I'm going to go now before I start jamming kitchen utensils down my ears and filling my house with hellish, poltergeist-like bellows to block out my middle school memories. 

Sources

#52
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@bmdrocks21
I said "ideological lines" because the more controversial and divisive decisions are generally the close votes. Those are based more on either a traditional or revisionist interpretation.

Does the links support the supreme court is based on ideological lines? 
Tax contribution. Or, in rare cases, they could have spill-over effects, but that is incredibly difficult to track. 
Do you have any data on the tracking if not don't you think making claims without data supporting it makes your claim flimsy? Shouldn't you be for research into immigrants tax contribution before making a claim?
I could have. I view this particular "cost" as a wasteful one, which I tried to explain through the context of my overall message.
oke
Sure, some may pay sales taxes and other such things, but they likely won't pay income taxes for being super poor. Since they take more than they pay, and we also have the ability to prevent them from entering the country, I think we should do so.
Do you have data they take more than they pay?
Well, veterans have sacrificed a lot for our country. I guess this could be another manner of "contribution" that you mentioned earlier. We also pay them very little compared to the amount of risk and the importance of their work. So, I am fine with providing them with some benefits other than just money.
oke
I am appealing to individuals on this website on that viewpoint. There are lots of people who are both liberals and conservatives who have very serious concerns about the debt here. It will likely become a bigger issue in the future if we don't get it under control soon.
Whats the negatives of stacking debt?

8 days later

Topic's author
#53
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@blamonkey
I got super busy and forgot about this. I will respond eventually :P
#54
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,869
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Bernie Sanders once said Open Borders was a Koch Brothers scheme.
#55
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,869
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Topic's author
#56
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Oddly enough, I agreed with almost everything he said in the first half of the video. Strange how orange man bad changes people