6 ms·

This is a good summary but since 1996 immigrants are generally eligible for the same government subsidies as citizens. https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-sup

This is a good summary but since 1996 immigrants are generally eligible for the same government subsidies as citizens. https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/ https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeli... "The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household. The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups." https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native-Households https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native...

AtlasLion 8y ago
That does not take into account that said immigrant had their education paid for by another country and starts paying taxes on day one. Tax payers have to prep local population for 20 plus years before they start contributing.
- cglace 8y ago
  Do you think they are paying more in taxes than recieving? Having worked in the landscaping industry I know that paying under the table is not uncommon for immigrants.
pjc50 8y ago
The first link plainly states "After these laws’ enactment, most lawfully residing immigrants were barred from receiving assistance under the major federal benefits programs for five years or longer."? Is this really "subsidising immigration?" I mean, immigrants have costs too, and most of the few remaining things they are eligible for are emergency assistance of one sort or another. What this argument turns into in practice is "people who have resided in the first world for years as workers who hit economic trouble should starve or be deported". Hardly anyone comes to the first world to live off public assistance. It's either a matter of survival/safety or a search for opportunity.
- johnisgood 8y ago
  > Hardly anyone comes to the first world to live off public assistance. It's either a matter of survival/safety or a search for opportunity. This is objectively wrong though. If they were to use the actual law for refugees, they have to seek asylum in the first country they arrive in, yet they all travel onwards to the EU, to the 4th or so European country, and they do get on welfare and live off public assistance. If they were seeking safety, they would stay in the first country, Turkey. But obviously, Turkey does not have generous free packages, so they - as you said -, search for opportunity to receive free stuff, i.e. move to far away countries where they would be eligible for welfare (public assistance). https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/non-citizens-uninsured-welfare-census-data/ https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/non-citizens-u... https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfa... 63% non-citizen households are on welfare. This is not hardly anyone. Note: I realize that the statistics above are concerned with the US and not the EU, but it refutes the quoted statement. --- This does not necessarily apply to immigrants from other European countries migrating to the UK, for example. They are the ones searching for opportunities alone[1], and not safety. There are many definitions of safety, and in this case I was referring to safety in terms of fleeing from war zones, and as far as I am concerned, those European countries these people (from this example) are migrating from are not a war zone. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7445/CBP-7445.pdf http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7... [1] Of course one could migrate to another country simply because they offer more free stuff. I do not deny that. On the other hand, in Germany: > In April 2018 more than half, at 55%, of the recipients of unemployment benefits had a migration background. According to the Federal Employment Agency (German: Bundesagentur für Arbeit) this was due to the migrants lacking either employable skills or knowledge of the language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany http://www.dnn.de/Nachrichten/Politik/Jeder-zweite-Hartz-IV-Empfaenger-hat-Migrationshintergrund http://www.dnn.de/Nachrichten/Politik/Jeder-zweite-Hartz-IV-... Note that they may take into account people from other European countries, too, i.e. not refugees. --- > I mean, immigrants have costs too Do immigrants who work have a cost? I could migrate to the US from a non-warzone and I believe it would not cost the US anything, but would make money off of me.

AtlasLion 8y ago

That does not take into account that said immigrant had their education paid for by another country and starts paying taxes on day one. Tax payers have to prep local population for 20 plus years before they start contributing.

cglace 8y ago
Do you think they are paying more in taxes than recieving? Having worked in the landscaping industry I know that paying under the table is not uncommon for immigrants.

pjc50 8y ago

The first link plainly states "After these laws’ enactment, most lawfully residing immigrants were barred from receiving assistance under the major federal benefits programs for five years or longer."? Is this really "subsidising immigration?" I mean, immigrants have costs too, and most of the few remaining things they are eligible for are emergency assistance of one sort or another. What this argument turns into in practice is "people who have resided in the first world for years as workers who hit economic trouble should starve or be deported". Hardly anyone comes to the first world to live off public assistance. It's either a matter of survival/safety or a search for opportunity.

johnisgood 8y ago
> Hardly anyone comes to the first world to live off public assistance. It's either a matter of survival/safety or a search for opportunity. This is objectively wrong though. If they were to use the actual law for refugees, they have to seek asylum in the first country they arrive in, yet they all travel onwards to the EU, to the 4th or so European country, and they do get on welfare and live off public assistance. If they were seeking safety, they would stay in the first country, Turkey. But obviously, Turkey does not have generous free packages, so they - as you said -, search for opportunity to receive free stuff, i.e. move to far away countries where they would be eligible for welfare (public assistance). https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/non-citizens-uninsured-welfare-census-data/ https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/non-citizens-u... https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfa... 63% non-citizen households are on welfare. This is not hardly anyone. Note: I realize that the statistics above are concerned with the US and not the EU, but it refutes the quoted statement. --- This does not necessarily apply to immigrants from other European countries migrating to the UK, for example. They are the ones searching for opportunities alone[1], and not safety. There are many definitions of safety, and in this case I was referring to safety in terms of fleeing from war zones, and as far as I am concerned, those European countries these people (from this example) are migrating from are not a war zone. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7445/CBP-7445.pdf http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7... [1] Of course one could migrate to another country simply because they offer more free stuff. I do not deny that. On the other hand, in Germany: > In April 2018 more than half, at 55%, of the recipients of unemployment benefits had a migration background. According to the Federal Employment Agency (German: Bundesagentur für Arbeit) this was due to the migrants lacking either employable skills or knowledge of the language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany http://www.dnn.de/Nachrichten/Politik/Jeder-zweite-Hartz-IV-Empfaenger-hat-Migrationshintergrund http://www.dnn.de/Nachrichten/Politik/Jeder-zweite-Hartz-IV-... Note that they may take into account people from other European countries, too, i.e. not refugees. --- > I mean, immigrants have costs too Do immigrants who work have a cost? I could migrate to the US from a non-warzone and I believe it would not cost the US anything, but would make money off of me.