Census confirms: 63% of non-citizens on welfare

[vraiblonde]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...on-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households

In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.

That's 4.6 million households, ya'll.

Once again, Trump was right and the MSM was lying.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Why go by precentages? Wouldn't raw numbers shed some light?

63% of 7.5 million households (non-citizen) = 4.7 million
35% of 107 million households (native) = 37.45 million
(Note that CIS doesn't include Medicare or Social Security in their findings)

So is the issue the number of people on welfare or illegals on welfare? Does the value of those benefits matter as much as the source of the information?

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is a non-profit research organization “that favors far lower immigration numbers and produces research to further those views.” It was started as a spin-off from John Tanton’s Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 1985. Reports published by the CIS have been widely deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors by scholars on immigration; think tanks from across the ideological and political spectrum; media of all stripes; several leading nonpartisan immigration-research organizations; and by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The organization has also drawn criticism for its financial and intellectual ties to extremist racists. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) published reports in 2002 and 2009 connecting CIS to John Tanton, who helped found various other organizations, including the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and NumbersUSA, and showing he has ties to white supremacy groups and a eugenics foundation (SPLC). Bottom line, this is a hate group.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-immigration-studies-cis/

 

[GURPS]

any number above Zero is too many

 

[Gilligan]

Why go by precentages? Wouldn't raw numbers shed some light?

Nope. You simply crafted a bad moral equivalency.

The percentages illustrate exactly why we needn't be letting so many more in.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Nope. You simply crafted a bad moral equivalency.

The percentages illustrate exactly why we needn't be letting so many more in.

A moral equivalency fallacy draws comparisons between two different things. Percentages and the numbers those percentages represent is not a moral equivalency.

 

[jrt_ms1995]

So is the issue the number of people on welfare or illegals on welfare?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-immigration-studies-cis/

No, the issue is that a Federal welfare program exists at all.

 

[vraiblonde]

Why go by precentages? Wouldn't raw numbers shed some light?

IF you read my post, you will see that I did put a number in there.

So is the issue the number of people on welfare or illegals on welfare?

The number of illegals on welfare in this country should be 0. They're not even supposed to be here, let alone collecting our tax dollars as welfare.

If you want to fund the lives of criminals, go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you. But you have no right to insist the rest of us spend our money in that manner.

 

[vraiblonde]

AND! I note the narrative swerve. It's gone from "Nuh uh! There are no illegal immigrants on welfare!" to "So? More legal Americans are on welfare than illegals!"

You should wear a smoke detector as a hat for when your circuits start overheating from overload.

 

[Kyle]

I could care less about percentages, relative impacts etc. ... Its 4.7 million too ####ing many.

 

[GURPS]

AND! I note the narrative swerve.

Yep Abject Denial - NO Illegal Immigrants Draw Welfare / Public Assistance

 

[SamSpade]

I could care less about percentages, relative impacts etc. ... Its 4.7 million too ####ing many.

And that is *households*. There's even more beneficiaries.

 

[glhs837]

Lets not forget the "They contribute more than they draw" BS from a couple years ago.

 

[SamSpade]

Lets not forget the "They contribute more than they draw" BS from a couple years ago.

Add to that the only point to THAT myth is they're using someone else's SSN.
Like that's not already a crime.

 

[Gilligan]

A moral equivalency fallacy draws comparisons between two different things. Percentages and the numbers those percentages represent is not a moral equivalency.

Fail.

Your intent was to try and posit that since the "raw numbers" were so different, and that much larger number of citizens are on the dole, it's all fine and dandy. A false moral equivalence.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

And that is *households*. There's even more beneficiaries.

Households that include American citizens, yes? Shouldn't the study be looking at individuals instead?

Fail.

Your intent was to try and posit that since the "raw numbers" were so different, and that much larger number of citizens are on the dole, it's all fine and dandy. A false moral equivalence.

Fail is trying to tell someone what their intent is. Double fail is doing it incorrectly. Again, that's not a moral equivalency despite what you learned in "Forum Buzzwords 101".

 

[SamSpade]

Fail.

Your intent was to try and posit that since the "raw numbers" were so different, and that much larger number of citizens are on the dole, it's all fine and dandy. A false moral equivalence.

Since it's not only FREQUENTLY said they don't ever get any - it should at least evoke as much outrage as it should if
extremely wealthy people were getting welfare checks.

(Of course, I can hear the hue and cry of those saying oh but they do! through tax cuts.
Except that a tax CUT is lowering the payments someone *makes* - it's keeping more of your own money,
rather than getting someone else's money.)

 

[This_person]

Why go by precentages? Wouldn't raw numbers shed some light?

No. Raw numbers are misleading. It's like saying there are more white people in jail than black people if you look at just the numbers. That doesn't mean much when shown black people are grossly disproportionately represented in jail.

Now, if your point is that too many people, period, are in jail or taking tax money from productive members of society or whatever, then you have a point in a whole separate discussion.

 

[transporter]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...on-citizens-on-welfare-4-6-million-households



That's 4.6 million households, ya'll.

Once again, Trump was right and the MSM was lying.

Just to point out the stunningly obvious, the term your propaganda source is using is "non-citizen". That does not mean illegal. This is a common tactic pursued by the Center for Immigration Studies.

 

[PrchJrkr]

Just to point out the stunningly obvious, the term your propaganda source is using is "non-citizen". That does not mean illegal. This is a common tactic pursued by the Center for Immigration Studies.

Regardless, non-citizens should not be receiving benefits paid for through taxing citizens, agreed?

 

[Hijinx]

The welfare is only a part of the problem.
There is education, health services,and the cost of imprisonment.Plus the cost of a hearing and trying to find these perps when the hearing is supposed to start.