Stop Immigration Now!

Ralph 123 · Dec 26, 2003

Re: Stop Immigration Now!

Back Where We Started An Examination of Trends in Immigrant Welfare Use Since Welfare Reform March 2003 By Steven A. Camarota http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back503.html One of the most controversial provisions of the 1996 welfare reform law barred many legal immigrants from using certain welfare programs. This report evaluates that effort by examining trends in immigrant and native use of the four major welfare programs that constitute the core of the nations welfare system: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Medicaid. The findings show that use of TANF and food stamps has declined significantly for both immigrant and native households and also that the gap has narrowed between the two groups. However, considering all four programs together shows that the gap between immigrant and native households has not narrowed, and in fact has widened slightly. Moreover immigrant households comprise a growing share of all households using the welfare system. Our analysis finds that: In 1996, 22 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one major welfare program, compared to 15 percent of native households. After declining in the late 1990s, welfare use returned to 1996 levels by 2001, with 23 percent of immigrant households using welfare compared to 15 percent of native households. (Figure 1) The persistently high rate of welfare use by immigrant households is almost entirely explained by their heavy reliance on Medicaid, use of which has actually risen modestly. In contrast, their use of TANF has fallen significantly, from a little under 6 percent in 1996 to slightly over 2 percent in 2001. Food stamp use has also declined significantly, from about 10 percent to 6 percent. These rates are now only modestly above those of natives. (Table 1) The decline in immigrant TANF and food stamp use has not resulted in a significant savings for taxpayers because it has been almost entirely offset by increases in the costs of providing Medicaid to immigrant households. The total combined value of benefits and payments received by immigrant households from welfare programs is almost unchanged in inflation-adjusted dollars, averaging almost $2,000 in 2001, about 50 percent higher than natives. (Figure 2) Continuing high rates of immigrant welfare use, coupled with the rapidly growing immigrant population has meant that the number of immigrant households using welfare has increased by 750,000 since 1996, with immigrant households now accounting for 18 percent of all households using a major welfare program, up from 14 percent in 1996. (Figure 3) Estimating welfare use for only households headed by legal immigrants also shows a significant decline in TANF and food stamps use. However, continued heavy reliance on Medicaid has meant that the percentage of legal immigrant household using welfare remained constant at about 22 percent in the 1996-2001 time period and the average value of payments and benefits received by legal immigrants also remained constant at roughly $2,200 a year. (Table 1) Households headed by illegal aliens receive welfare, primarily Medicaid, on behalf of their U.S.-born children. In 2001, for example, the value of benefits and payments received by illegal alien households averaged over $1,000. This is considerably less than the $2,200 received by legal immigrant households on average, so one unintended consequence of legalizing illegal aliens would be a significant increase in welfare costs. (Table 1) Although refugees do make extensive use of welfare programs, they do not account for a large enough share of the legal immigrant population to explain continued heavy use of welfare by legal immigrants. Excluding households headed by refugees, 21 percent of non-refugee legal immigrant households used at least one major welfare program in 2001, compared to 15 percent of natives. (Table 1) Consistent with previous research, this study finds that use of welfare programs does not decline significantly the longer immigrants live in the country. In 2001, households headed by immigrants who had been in the country for more than 20 years continued to use the welfare system at significantly higher rates than natives. (Figure 5) The high rate of welfare use associated with immigrants is not explained by their unwillingness to work. In 2001, almost 80 percent of immigrant households using welfare had at least one person working. One of the main reasons for the heavy reliance of immigrants on welfare programs is that a very large share have little education. The American economy offers very limited opportunities to such workers, and as a result many immigrants who work are still eligible for welfare because of their low incomes. Use of the welfare system varies significantly by country. In 2001, immigrants from Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America had the highest use rates, while those from South Asia, Western Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Canada had the lowest. (Table 4) Immigrant households make extensive use of the welfare system in almost every state and metropolitan area with a large immigrant population. The highest use rates for immigrants are found in California, New York, Texas, and Massachusetts. (Table 5) See rest of paper at link above

Ralph 123 · Dec 26, 2003

Re: Stop Immigration Now!

Postscript 9/11 Media Coverage of Terrorism and Immigration April 2003 By William McGowan http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back603.html .... Although 9/11 was first and foremost a failure of law enforcement, intelligence, and immigration procedures, the journalistic establishment also bears some responsibility for the disarmed condition in which we found ourselves on September 11. For years that establishment looked at the issue of immigration largely through ideological, rose-colored glasses, and gave minimal attention to many of the numerous holes in the state and federal immigration net that September 11 revealed. (According to the INS, three of the 19 hijackers were here illegally on expired visas, and two were able to obtain valid visas despite being on U.S. intelligence agency watch lists.) It also cheerily perpetuated the erroneous notion that while the immigration system in the country was indeed chaotic, the blessings of this chaos clearly outweighed the costs, and that there were few onerous consequences for the nation as a whole. The attacks brought down two of the biggest buildings in the world, killing several thousand people in the process. But they also shattered a decade of journalistic denial and avoidance that helped make the attacks possible in the first place. As terrorism expert Steven Emerson told a far less righteous House subcommittee a year before the September 11 attacks, an absence of a vigilant media has allowed terrorists to anchor themselves and operate here. 2 September 11 has indeed spurred much of the media to report about immigration more vigilantly. Yet an analysis of immigration issues in the year following 9/11 shows that mainstream journalism still bears considerable evidence of a politically correct mindset. This mindset is largely reflected in a new solicitude toward Muslim and Arab immigrants and the place of Islam in a multicultural America, as well as enduring hostility to basic immigration reforms the 9/11 attacks would seem to have put beyond argument. And though 9/11 has made it more acceptable to highlight problems associated with immigration, it has not changed the climate of indifference and hostility to those arguing for immigration reform, however much the link between policy lapses and terrorism have been abundantly underscored, in evil and deadly ways. After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing revealed that even then terrorists had exploited our dysfunctional visa system and our poor immigration screening procedures, U.S. officials overseas were supposed to tighten procedures governing screening procedures for visas issued to the more than 10 million foreigners who apply for them annually. (Approximately seven million of those who apply get them, including every one of the 9/11 hijackers.) But the screening system continued to be spectacularly lax and badly run. Consular officers did not gain access to FBI criminal databases, faced tremendous pressure to push the line forward, and worried about offending the host country by denying too many applications. In some cases, much of the day-to-day work was being performed by non-American nationals in embassy employ, their loyalties uncertain. This was distressingly true in Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the hijackers came from and where U.S. visa processors allowed through the system applications that were laughably incomplete, vague, and that should have been rejected. Responding to a question on destination in the U.S., one applicant answered hotel.3 The Story Not Covered Pre-9/11 Before 9/11, the intelligence and law enforcement communities, along with immigration reformers, had been trying to draw attention to the disarray in the visa-issuance system. But aside from The Washington Times, which pegged off a 2000 Backgrounder from the Center for Immigration Studies, database searches show a minimal press response the watchdog did not bark.4 There were considerable weaknesses in another area involving the monitoring of visitors especially those using flights from Egypt and Saudi Arabia and a lack of interest from the press as well. For a decade, federal officials had asked foreign airlines to electronically provide passenger lists when planes begin flights to the United States. These electronic transmissions, called the Advance Passenger Screening System, allow customs and immigration officers at points of arrival to get a head start on checking names against watch lists of high-risk passengers, which often takes considerable time given the fragmentation of various federal agencies databases. While 94 foreign airlines had extended cooperation, Egypt Air and Saudi Arabian Airlines refused for years to do so and continued to refuse, even after 9/11. A Saudi embassy spokesman quoted in a New York Times piece on Oct. 18 said: At this time, hundreds of Saudi citizens are being detained and questioned with regard to the hijackings. A lot of them are innocent people. That number would probably quadruple if we shared advance information on air passengers with the United States.5 This was not a small story, especially in light of the billions in foreign aid we give both of those countries and how virulent their Muslim fundamentalist problems are. Yet a database search of the major newspapers reveals no attention was paid to this gap at all, aside from a breezy 1997 New York Times travel section piece aptly headlined Zipping Through Customs.6 Visa policies involving foreign access to U.S. aviation also seem to have some glitches. Countries like Syria are barred from landing their planes in the United States because of Syrias support for terrorism. Syrian pilots, however, like a group who arrived several weeks after 9/11, can get U.S. visas for purposes of taking private flight-school instruction. But this situation, too, received no attention from any major American news organization until Fox News reported it in October 2001 another revelatory sin of omission. Visa overstays are still another weak spot, both in terms of policies and press coverage. The Immigration Reform Act of 1996 was supposed to introduce a tracking system to match entries and exits (the number of overstays is estimated at two million, growing by 125,000 every year). But the system was never implemented, and the few press reports that addressed the issue gave prominence to minimizers, like a representative from the American Immigration Lawyers Association who told Congress recently that most overstays were innocent people spending an extra week at Disneyworld.7 News organizations have also been remiss with respect to the opposition of academic institutions to the implementation of a much-needed system for monitoring student visa holders. (There are 500,000 foreign students in the country now, their exact whereabouts untracked; according to officials, one hijacker had a visa to study at a California Berlitz school but never showed up for class.)8 Many of the colleges and universities who objected to student-visa tracking did so because they didnt want the bureaucratic hassles they feared loss of revenue if foreign enrollments dipped (foreign students often pay full tuition), and because they felt that treating foreign students differently from American citizens was stigmatizing and discriminatory. This was a good story. ....

Ralph 123 · Dec 26, 2003

Re: Stop Immigration Now!

Elite vs. Public Opinion An Examination of Divergent Views on Immigration December 2002 By Roy Beck and Steven A. Camarota http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back1402.html While it has long been suspected that public and elite opinion differ on the issue of immigration, a new poll provides the most compelling evidence yet that there is an enormous gap between the American people and "opinion leaders" on the issue. The survey also suggests that the gap between the public and elites has actually widened since the September 11 terrorist attacks. This Backgrounder is based on the findings of a recent national poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in May through July of this year. The Council is a non-profit policy organization that sponsors polls and events on a host of foreign policy issues. The Council has a long tradition of polling to find differences between the public and opinion leaders. The polling of the public was based on 2,800 telephone interviews from across the nation. The council also surveyed nearly 400 opinion leaders, including members of Congress, the administration, and leaders of church groups, business executives, union leaders, journalists, academics, and leaders of major interest groups. (The full results of the survey can be found at http://www.worldviews.org/detailreports/usreport/html/ch5s5.html) This Backgrounder is the first detailed examination of the polls results on the issue of immigration. * The results of the survey indicate that the gap between the opinions of the American people on immigration and those of their leaders is enormous. The poll found that 60 percent of the public regards the present level of immigration to be a "critical threat to the vital interests of the United States," compared to only 14 percent of the nations leadership a 46 percentage point gap. * The current gap is even wider than that found in 1998, when 55 percent of the public viewed immigration as a "critical threat," compared to 18 percent of opinion leaders a 37 percentage point gap. * The poll results indicate that there is no other foreign policy-related issue on which the American people and their leaders disagreed more profoundly than immigration. Even on such divisive issues as globalization or strengthening the United Nations, the public and the elite are much closer together than they are on immigration. * When asked a specific question about whether legal immigration should be reduced, kept the same, or increased, 55 percent of the public said it should be reduced, and 27 percent said it should remain the same. In contrast, only 18 percent of opinion leaders said it should be reduced and 60 percent said it should remain the same. There was no other issue-specific question on which the public and elites differed more widely. * The enormous difference between elite and public opinion can also be seen on the issue of illegal immigration. The survey found that 70 percent of the public said that reducing illegal immigration should be a "very important" foreign-policy goal of the United States, compared to only 22 percent of elites. * Also with respect to illegal immigration, when the public was asked to rank the biggest foreign policy problems, the public ranked illegal immigration sixth, while elites ranked it 26th. * The very large difference between elite and public opinion explains the current political stalemate on immigration. For example, supporters of an amnesty for illegal immigrants have broad elite support ranging from religious to business and union leaders. Normally elite support of this kind would lead to policy changes, but on this issue public opposition is so strong that it creates a political stalemate. * Continued deep public dissatisfaction with current immigration policy indicates that candidates or political parties that advocate a reduction in immigration might reap a significant political benefit. This is especially true because it could be marketed as "anti-elite" and more in sync with the American people, a message that has traditionally been well received by voters. * President Bushs efforts to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants appear to be hurting him politically. While 53 percent of the public said his handling of foreign policy overall was excellent or good, on immigration only 27 percent said his handling of immigration was good or excellent; moreover, 70 percent rated Bush as poor or fair on immigration. the lowest rating he received on any foreign policy-related issue. ...

Ralph 123 · Dec 26, 2003

Re: Stop Immigration Now!

So then, Americans have tried to limit immigration for nearly 100 years. There have been large antiimmigration movements throuout much of America's history. Although America has had periods of high legal immigration, there have also been periods of very low and even negative immigration. The 1990s saw the highest immigration rates ever. Modern immigrants are expensive mainly becuase most are uneducated and the America of today provides few opportunities for them. Therefore, they use the social welfare system at much higher rates than citizens. Our enemies use our immigration system against us. The media and politicians have tried to feed the American people this politically correct, idealistic pablum that immigration is inherently good for America. Ask yourself who truly benefits from high immigration of largley unskilled, uneducated people. Who gains wealth? Who gains power? When America was empty and industrializing, immigration was necessary to grow the nation rapidly. Do the same condition exist today? What is the main logic behind supporting high levels of immigration?

Jwill · Dec 26, 2003

Re: Stop Immigration Now!

I say lock everything down and deport whats not legal. I'm not going to rant and rave the reasons for it. You people will see in the next 25-50 years what this country will be like and realize immigration should have been stopped while we still had it somewhat under control. Its not the politically correct thing to do so it will never happen. Limiting the amount of kids a woman has is not P.C. either that as well will never happen. Immigration is not going to destroy this country our elected officials will. The checks and balances our gone and they are free to do

rodbolt · Dec 26, 2003

Re: Stop Immigration Now!

hello hiyas Toad glad ya didnt split altogether. wow all this killer talk of immigration is too much. sounds almost like saudi bashing. cant do that. they areour best bestis buddies in the whole world. how come no racky bashing? after all the racki's had all the WMD's and they must have been responsible for the twin towers incident it would look bad in washington if you maybe blamed a saudi. lets toss all the illegals out. yep that will make us 100 % safe. crime will dissapear as well as food prices will drop due to less demand for it.wow now that I am done with that let me think on all the hard working immigrants I work with each year. most are a lot nicer folks than people that happened to be born here. at least they are educated and listen with an open mind and most dont blindly trust the government nor the news propaganda machines. I was in US navy security for a bit and have some training in the area. what we found is the man that wishes to die probably will. best you can hope for is that you are not in the area when he does.cops take reports not stop crime. that is why we dont need to be world cops. Isreal probably has the least human civil rights of anyplace in the middle east and they get hit with amazing regularity. I hope our leaders can learn from this what not to do but its not looking promising.do we need to know who is crossing our borders and what they are supposed to be doig? yes by all means. do we need to secure our borders letting no more in and throw all others out? by all means no. good luck and have a happy new year

Ralph 123 · Dec 26, 2003

Re: Stop Immigration Now!

I can't pass on this. The lesson you draw is not the correct one in my opinion.In fact, just the opposite can be concluded. Let me just say, if Isreal were as lax as the US the jews would have been driven into the sea many years ago. The attacks that do get through are but a small fraction of those attempted or would be attempted if security were lessened. When was the last time an El AL jet was hijcked or bombed for example? Shoudl we conclude there were no attempts? No, I don't think so. Tough security, when necessary, works. Reciprocity, when necessary, works.

jerzshaw · Dec 26, 2003

Re: Stop Immigration Now!

Mr Spencer, You sound an awful lot like very good speechgiver who came to power overseas in the 1930's. Subsitute Germany for America in your own posts. We who subscribe to diversity do so, not because it is politically correct, rather because we know that we learn and grow more productive by experiencing and tolerating others different than our own backgrounds. As for the influx of immigrants... 1) there are always ebbs and tides (no pun intended) in our immigration rates (as there is in our economy) throughout history...with each wave laying the groundwork for a new period of prosperity for us all as a nation. 2) regarding immigrants being undeducated and expensive....hmmm is that why IBM and Microsoft and AOL have shipped tech jobs overseas? In the 80's we lost our maufacturing edge to overseas nations (japan) who in turn with their new wealth became some of America's largest importers of other goods. Economies change. Adapt. Move resources to where they are most efficiently utilized. Most recently we have started exporting some sevice jobs. But fear not; our workforce is the most productive in the world, as well as adaptable. It may not be a silicon valley boom this time that revitalizes the economy, but rest assured it will be something. Hard economic times require retooling, not fear spreading and pandering. Be a good soldier and help your brethren get to the job at hand like good Marines. You will do more for your country that way than playing Al Sharpton.

Ralph 123 · Dec 26, 2003

Re: Stop Immigration Now!

First of all, you have a hell of a nerve comparing me to Hitler. Someone you don't even know. Somebody who's posts are numerous enough for anyone who cares to be respectful and objective can read and draw very different conclusions. I am not a racists or a homophobe or any of the other slanderous names people like you like to throw around and my posts prove it. Check em out. I came to this post with an open mind and did some research and posted the results of that research, none of which was authored by me. That is more than I can say for bomb throwers and name callers like you Sal. I simply read the data - if you don't like it too bad. The truth hurts some times. I am not willing to swallow the pablum people try to force feed on others. I read, I think, I draw conclusions you should try it some time. I think immigration has become a big issue in this country for security reasons, cost reasons and economic reasons, not racial reasons. the costs of large Immigration in modern America outweigh the bennifits in my opinion. When people like you can't refute the data you call people names like racists and nazi. It is a tried and true tactic of the left in this country and it is reprehensible! Now take your sanctimony and shove it!

jerzshaw · Dec 26, 2003

Re: Stop Immigration Now!

Mr Spencer, Your elsewhere-authored works are statistics manipulated and tinkered with by political groups with definitive and preconcluded agendas. I have seen hundreds of them. And I have seen hundreds of the PC leftist "blurbs" documents as well. I advocate neither. I do advocate calm, rational, and evolved thought however. I rarely post on any forum because I subscribe to the notion that there is no correlation between the number and forcefulness of posts with their validity or intelligence. I do step up and speak when I sense someone is flaming the very dangerous and easily engulfing flames of hate, even though it may be disguised in "elsewher-authored" works and official looking reports and statistics. I am one of six children to immigrant parents, who have come to this country without a nickel in their pockets, became physicians, and whose children all became productive, tax-paying, and charitable contributors to our society. Members of my family have served and paid the ultimate price here. There are many reasons this country is so great, the least of which is because we accept all, encourage opportunity for all, and don't succomb to fear. And if my post appeared to be a personal attack on you as a person, I assure you it was not; if it affected you that way I am sorry. I understand that you will be compelled to try to engage in a war of words, and you may do so. I would just like to balance the table so that the intelligent people on this forum can view your words in context. I wish you peace and health.

Ralph 123 · Dec 26, 2003

Re: Stop Immigration Now!

I am glad you had the courage to admit that your position is arrived at based on pure emotion of your own personal situation and not based on any larger facts or data. I would have been willing to place a sizable bet that was the case. Even though I am the gradnson of immigrants, my position is not based on personal emotions or situations. The world is a different place and I play them as they lay. I love the it's all lies and manipulated data comment... denial is a beutiful thing. Kind of tough to have someone compare you to Hilter and not take it very personally. It also shows a great lack of understanding on your part about Hitler.

jerzshaw · Dec 26, 2003

Re: Stop Immigration Now!

Go in peace Mr Spencer. Your sharing of your unbiased views are complete, and now others I am sure see your views as such. Again, I wish you peace and health.

moderator1 · Dec 26, 2003

Re: Stop Immigration Now!

No personal attacks, will be tolerated. This topic is closed.

Stop Immigration Now!

Captain

Captain

Captain

Captain

Petty Officer 2nd Class

Supreme Mariner

Captain

Seaman Apprentice

Captain

Seaman Apprentice

Captain

Seaman Apprentice

Lieutenant Commander