llegal immigrants get $1,261 more welfare than American families, $5,692 vs. $4,431

[Cave Savage]

Report on "Illegal" Immigrant Welfare Use is Fundamentally Flawed—Here’s Why

It’s déjà vu all over again at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Having released one flawed report on immigrant “welfare” use late last year, CIS has followed up with another that contains the same flaws. The biggest shortcoming of both reports is that they count the public benefits utilized by U.S.-born children as costs incurred by the “immigrant-headed households” of which they are a part—at least until those children turn 18, that is, at which point they are counted as “natives.”

The problem with this kind of creative accounting is that all children are “costly” when they are young because they consume educational and health services without contributing any tax revenue. However, that situation reverses when they are working-age adults who, in a sense, “pay back” in taxes what they consumed as children. So it is disingenuous to count them as a “cost of immigration” one minute, and then as native-born taxpayers the next minute. As the Cato Institute asked rhetorically in their critique of last year’s CIS report on immigrants and public benefits, if native-born children who utilize public benefits are counted as “costs” attributable to immigration, why not include native-born grandchildren and great-grandchildren as well?

In addition, CIS doesn’t account for income differences within the U.S. population. Rather than comparing rates of public-benefits usage among low-income immigrants and low-income natives, CIS compares use rates for all natives and all immigrants (including the wealthy, who don’t need public benefits). When differences in income are taken into account, though, the picture changes dramatically from what CIS suggests. For example, a 2013 report by two researchers from George Washington University concludes that:

“Low-income non-citizen adults and children generally have lower rates of public benefit use than native-born adults or citizen children whose parents are also citizens. Moreover, when low-income non-citizens receive public benefits, the average value of benefits per recipient is almost always lower than for the native-born.”

At the most fundamental level, what CIS fails to understand is that the U.S.-born children of immigrant parents are among tomorrow’s workers, consumers, and taxpayers. As a result, it is in the best interest of the U.S. economy to ensure that these children grow up healthy and educated since that will increase their productivity, earning power, buying power, and tax payments later in life. One does not empower any economically disadvantaged group of people to earn higher wages by cutting their access to public-benefits programs and thereby beating them further into poverty.

It is worth mentioning that this latest offering by CIS on immigrants and public benefits was authored by Jason Richwine, a former employee of the Heritage Foundation who lost his job there in 2013 thanks to his doctoral dissertation at Harvard, which argued that today’s predominantly non-white immigrants are inherently less intelligent than white natives. Given this level of disregard for modern social science, it comes as no surprise that Richwine holds immigrants as a group responsible for the free school lunches eaten by the U.S.-born children of immigrants with lower incomes.

Regardless of the author’s credibility, the only “solutions” offered by this latest CIS report are stringent limits on future immigration or stringent limits on eligibility for public benefits. Neither of these actually invests anything in the future of a workforce in which one out of every six workers is foreign-born. A pathway to legal status for immigrants who are unauthorized; naturalization drives for those who are already lawful permanent residents; English and adult-education courses for those who need new skills to get better jobs—these are some of the ways to invest in the U.S. workforce. Bemoaning that there are children of immigrants who utilize public benefits accomplishes nothing constructive.

Report on Immigrant Welfare Use is Fundamentally Flawed—Here’s Why

Thanks for posting this, I'm tired of seeing those shytty charts posted

 

[flea]

This is America, the land that I love free money

 

[Cave Savage]

Wait a minute, the CIS is a conservative, anti-immigeration organization that tries to pretend it's an official source.

 

[Londilon]

And you are relying on a website that relies on manipulated data and misinformation from nativist hate groups according to SPLC.

The data they used in your article is cherry picked that's the point of the article I posted.

But continue to be a tool for white supremacy breh ignorant to propaganda

Are you trying to say that The Center for Immigration Studies uses manipulated data and misinformation? Looks like you didn't do your research.


About the Center for Immigration Studies


FacebookTwitterGoogle+EmailPrintFriendly

Who We Are
The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization. Since our founding in 1985, we have pursued a single mission – providing immigration policymakers, the academic community, news media, and concerned citizens with reliable information about the social, economic, environmental, security, and fiscal consequences of legal and illegal immigration into the United States.

The Center is governed by a diverse board of directors that has included active and retired university professors, civil rights leaders, and former government officials. Our research and analysis has been funded by contributions and grants from dozens of private foundations, from the U.S. Census Bureau and Justice Department, and from hundreds of generous individual donors.

Our board, our staff, our researchers, and our contributor base are not predominantly "liberal" or predominantly "conservative." Instead, we believe in common that debates about immigration policy that are well-informed and grounded in objective data will lead to better immigration policies.

The data collected by the Center during the past quarter-century has led many of our researchers to conclude that current, high levels of immigration are making it harder to achieve such important national objectives as better public schools, a cleaner environment, homeland security, and a living wage for every native-born and immigrant worker. These data may support criticism of US immigration policies, but they do not justify ill feelings toward our immigrant community. In fact, many of us at the Center are animated by a "low-immigration, pro-immigrant" vision of an America that admits fewer immigrants but affords a warmer welcome for those who are admitted.

Center Staff
Mark Krikorian, Executive Director
Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research
Jon Feere, Legal Policy Analyst
Bryan Griffith, Multimedia Director
Jerry Kammer, Senior Research Fellow
Kausha Luna, Research Associate
Nayla Rush, Senior Researcher
Stephen Steinlight, Senior Policy Analyst
Marguerite Telford, Director of Communications
Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies
John Wahala, Assistant Director
Patrick McHugh, Editor
Cynthia Owens, Director of Administration
Thomas P. Redding, Research Associate
Karen Zeigler, Demographer
Jamie Greedan, Program Assistant

Center Fellows
Don Barnett
Dan Cadman
Glynn Custred
James R. Edwards, Jr.
John Miano
Ronald W. Mortensen
David North
Stanley Renshon
David Seminara

Board of Directors
Peter Nunez, Chairman of the Board of Directors
Thomas C.T. Brokaw
Bay Buchanan
William W. Chip
T. Willard Fair
Carol Iannone
Kent E. Lundgren
Frank Morris, Sr.
Jan Ting
Harry E. Soyster

The Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration
The Center hopes to raise the bar in immigration coverage by the media making an annual award to the journalist who best challenges the norm of immigration reporting. Read about our winners.

Internship Program
The Center for Immigration Studies is the nation’s only think tank devoted exclusively to the research of U.S. immigration policy and is a leading voice in the drive to inform policymakers and the public about immigration’s far-reaching impact. The Center is animated by a unique pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted.

Undergraduate interns are accepted for all semesters. Work hours, typically 20-35 hours per week, are flexible and unpaid. Interns assist the Center’s staff with a variety of research, media relations, and administrative tasks. Also, interns will likely attend and summarize into blog postings the Center’s events, Congressional hearings, and other immigration related events.

Applications are accepted year-round, though earlier applicants will have a particular advantage. To apply, please send you cover letter and resume as an e-mail attachments to press@cis.org.

Media References
Lexis Nexis was used to search media references that discussed both immigration and the organizations below.

Organization 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total
Pew Hispanic Center 570 621 1,489 3,136 1,854 1,577 9,247
Center for Immigration Studies 1,190 966 1,281 2,237 1,756 1,119 8,549
National Council of La Raza 509 872 735 1,256 1,314 1,200 5,886
FAIR 654 835 710 1,197 1,209 831 5,436
AILA 579 535 509 750 806 586 3,765
National Immigration Forum 233 283 415 671 643 187 2,432
Urban Institute 346 486 335 370 512 263 2,312
Migration Policy Institue 207 267 297 529 578 441 2,319

About the Center for Immigration Studies


You are a troll if you even try to disprove this resource. This website can me used for research reports and academic studies in college. While your article that you posted has no references and writes like an opinion piece. Go back to the drawing board troll.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Thanks for posting this, I'm tired of seeing those shytty charts posted

Bruh, illegals aren't supposed to get a DIME.

So who cares if the study is "flawed." Yall are out here arguing between +/- 2 percentage points.

Thats filibustering over bullshyt.

 

[Londilon]

Wait a minute, the CIS is a conservative, anti-immigeration organization that tries to pretend it's an official source.

I guess using Census data is like using manipulated data for an agenda.

 

[Cave Savage]

Bruh, illegals aren't supposed to get a DIME.

So who cares if the study is "flawed." Yall are out here arguing between +/- 2 percentage points.

Thats filibustering over bullshyt.

I don't think illegals should be going on public assistance, but I don't think most of them are. Those anti-immigration organizations, which are run by cac conservatives, put out shytty studies that people shouldn't take seriously.

 

[8WON6]

that website

I was ready to cook too, but yeah that sites wreaks of cism. But yeah I was ready to go in about illegals.

 

[Cave Savage]

I guess using Census data is like using manipulated data for an agenda.

The CIS isn't census data, lol

It's a conservative, anti-immigration organization

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I don't think illegals should be going on public assistance, but I don't think most of them are. Those anti-immigration organizations, which are run by cac conservatives, put out shytty studies that people shouldn't take seriously.

Bruh. Even if you removed 10% off each of those values I posted, you'd still be at 50%+ of illegals still being on assistance!

 

[Cave Savage]

that website

I was ready to cook too, but yeah that sites wreaks of cism. But yeah I was ready to go in about illegals.

Are we gonna start posting links to Breitbart

 

[Londilon]

The CIS isn't census data, lol

It's a conservative, anti-immigration organization

if you say so

 

[Miles Davis]

How the hell do illegal immigrants get welfare if they illegal?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

How the hell do illegal immigrants get welfare if they illegal?

If they have kids, they can get it. And there are several programs in local jurisdictions to get them aid.

Its all fukked up.

 

[Mr swag]

this cant be real.

have can ilegals apply with no paperwork

do you mean refugees?