Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: Trump's 'merit-based' immigration reform plan 'makes sense' for America, Laura Ingrah

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883

    Trump's 'merit-based' immigration reform plan 'makes sense' for America, Laura Ingrah

    Trump's 'merit-based' immigration reform plan 'makes sense' for America, Laura Ingraham says

    By Charles Creitz | Fox News
    Published 1 hour ago

    Trump takes on immigration with new merit-based asylum plan.

    President Trump's new immigration reform plan, which calls for a shift toward a "merit-based" system, is the right way to "tackle [a] big issue" before America, Fox News' Laura Ingraham says.

    The host of "The Ingraham Angle" voiced that view Thursday, adding that Trump is continuing to "pursu[e] what he believes will make America great again."

    "Meaning, he's focused on lifting up the American worker, the American family and the American tradition," Ingraham said.

    Trump touted his immigration proposal as "pro American, pro immigrant and pro worker. It's just common sense. It will help all of our people, including millions of devoted immigrants to achieve the American dream," in a speech Thursday afternoon in Washington.

    Citing Trump's speech, Ingraham noted how the plan will increase the proportion of highly-skilled people who arrive in the U.S. Trump said such a move would make America more "globally competitive."

    Currently, only about 12 percent of immigrants are admitted based on employment and skills, while 66 percent are admitted based on family connections inside the U.S.

    Administration officials estimate that those numbers would flip to 57 and 33 percent, respectively, under the Trump plan.

    "A merit-based system is what the White House wants to create. It kind of makes sense, doesn't it? Versus what we have now?" Ingraham said, adding that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was critical of the proposal.

    In a clip played by Ingraham, Pelosi called "merit" a "condescending word."

    "Are they saying [that] most of the people who've ever come to the United States in the history of our country are without 'merit' because they don't have an engineering degree?" Pelosi asked.

    Ingraham called the remark "breathtakingly disingenuous, or ignorant, or both."

    Fox News' Adam Shaw contributed to this report.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...on-merit-based
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs
    Compared to 35% of native households

    By Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler on November 20, 2018

    Steven A. Camarota is the director of research and Karen Zeigler is a demographer at the Center.

    New "public charge" rules issued by the Trump administration expand the list of programs that are considered welfare, receipt of which may prevent a prospective immigrant from receiving lawful permanent residence (a green card). Analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) shows welfare use by households headed by non-citizens is very high. The desire to reduce these rates among future immigrants is the primary justification for the rule change. Immigrant advocacy groups are right to worry that the high welfare use of non-citizens may impact the ability of some to receive green cards, though the actual impacts of the rules are unclear because they do not include all the benefits non-citizens receive on behalf of their children and many welfare programs are not included in the new rules. As welfare participation varies dramatically by education level, significantly reducing future welfare use rates would require public charge rules that take into consideration education levels and resulting income and likely welfare use.

    Of non-citizens in Census Bureau data, roughly half are in the country illegally. Non-citizens also include long-term temporary visitors (e.g. guestworkers and foreign students) and permanent residents who have not naturalized (green card holders). Despite the fact that there are barriers designed to prevent welfare use for all of these non-citizen populations, the data shows that, overall, non-citizen households access the welfare system at high rates, often receiving benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children.

    Among the findings:

    In 2014, 63 percent of households headed by a non-citizen reported that they used at least one welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native-headed households.

    Welfare use drops to 58 percent for non-citizen households and 30 percent for native households if cash payments from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) are not counted as welfare. EITC recipients pay no federal income tax. Like other welfare, the EITC is a means-tested, anti-poverty program, but unlike other programs one has to work to receive it.

    Compared to native households, non-citizen households have much higher use of food programs (45 percent vs. 21 percent for natives) and Medicaid (50 percent vs. 23 percent for natives).

    Including the EITC, 31 percent of non-citizen-headed households receive cash welfare, compared to 19 percent of native households. If the EITC is not included, then cash receipt by non-citizen households is slightly lower than natives (6 percent vs. 8 percent).


    While most new legal immigrants (green card holders) are barred from most welfare programs, as are illegal immigrants and temporary visitors, these provisions have only a modest impact on non-citizen household use rates because: 1) most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify; 2) the bar does not apply to all programs, nor does it always apply to non-citizen children; 3) some states provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; and, most importantly, 4) non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth.

    The following figures include EITC:

    No single program explains non-citizens' higher overall welfare use. For example, not counting school lunch and breakfast, welfare use is still 61 percent for non-citizen households compared to 33 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 55 percent for immigrants compared to 30 percent for natives.

    Welfare use tends to be high for both newer arrivals and long-time residents. Of households headed by non-citizens in the United States for fewer than 10 years, 50 percent use one or more welfare programs; for those here more than 10 years, the rate is 70 percent.

    Welfare receipt by working households is very common. Of non-citizen households receiving welfare, 93 percent have at least one worker, as do 76 percent of native households receiving welfare. In fact, non-citizen households are more likely overall to have a worker than are native households.1

    The primary reason welfare use is so high among non-citizens is that a much larger share of non-citizens have modest levels of education and, as a result, they often earn low wages and qualify for welfare at higher rates than natives.

    Of all non-citizen households, 58 percent are headed by immigrants who have no more than a high school education, compared to 36 percent of native households.

    Of households headed by non-citizens with no more than a high school education, 81 percent access one or more welfare programs. In contrast, 28 percent of non-citizen households headed by a college graduate use one or more welfare programs.
    Like non-citizens, welfare use also varies significantly for natives by educational attainment, with the least educated having much higher welfare use than the most educated.

    Using education levels and likely future income to determine the probability of welfare use among new green card applicants — and denying permanent residency to those likely to utilize such programs — would almost certainly reduce welfare use among future permanent residents.
    Of households headed by naturalized immigrants (U.S. citizens), 50 percent used one or more welfare programs.

    Naturalized-citizen households tend to have lower welfare use than non-citizen households for most types of programs, but higher use rates than native households for virtually every major program.

    Welfare use is significantly higher for non-citizens than for natives in all four top immigrant-receiving states. In California, 72 percent of non-citizen-headed households use one or more welfare programs, compared to 35 percent for native-headed households. In Texas, the figures are 69 percent vs. 35 percent; in New York they are 53 percent vs. 38 percent; and in Florida, 56 percent of non-citizen-headed households use at least welfare program, compared to 35 percent of native households.

    Methods

    Programs Examined. The major welfare programs examined in this report are Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) food program, free or subsidized school lunch and breakfast, food stamps (officially called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), Medicaid, public housing, and rent subsidies.

    Data Source. Data for this analysis comes from the public-use file of the 2014 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), which is the newest SIPP data available.2 The SIPP is a longitudinal dataset consisting of a series of "panels". Each panel is a nationally representative sample of U.S. households that is followed over several years. The survey was redesigned for 2013 with 2014 as the second wave of the new panel. We use the 2014 SIPP for this analysis. Like all Census surveys of this kind, welfare use is based on self-reporting in the SIPP, and as such there is some misreporting in the survey. All means and percentages are calculated using weights provided by the Census Bureau.

    Why Use the SIPP? The SIPP is ideally suited for studying welfare programs because, unlike other Census surveys that measure welfare, the SIPP was specifically designed for this purpose. As the Census Bureau states on its website, the purpose of the SIPP is to "provide accurate and comprehensive information about the income and program participation of individuals and households."3 In addition to the SIPP, the only other government surveys that identify immigrants and at the same time measure welfare use for the entire population are the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement, often abbreviated as CPS ASEC or just ASEC. The ACS is a very large survey, but only asks about a few programs. The ASEC is released on a more timely basis than the SIPP and asks about more programs than the ACS, but it does not include the EITC; the ASEC also is not specifically designed to capture receipt of welfare programs. As we discuss at length in a prior study published in 2015, based on 2012 SIPP data, there is general agreement among researchers that the SIPP does a better job of capturing welfare use than other Census Bureau surveys, including the ASEC and ACS.4 More recent analysis confirms this conclusion.5

    One recent improvement in the SIPP that was not available when we conducted our 2015 study is the inclusion of a question on use of the EITC, making for even more complete coverage of the nation's welfare programs. The EITC is by far the nation's largest cash program to low-income workers, paying out nearly $60 billion in 2014.6 Unfortunately for immigration research, the SIPP survey for 2014 no longer asks respondents about their current immigration status.7 As other researchers have pointed out, individuals in prior SIPPs who are non-citizens and report that they are currently not permanent residents are almost entirely illegal immigrants, with a modest number of long-term temporary visitors (e.g., guestworkers and foreign students) also included.8

    As we showed in our 2015 analysis using the 2012 SIPP, 66 percent of households headed by non-citizens who do not have a green card, and who are mostly illegal immigrants, have very high welfare use rates — excluding the EITC.9 With the new 2014 SIPP, we can no longer identify likely illegal immigrants with the same ease. However, we do know that about half of non-citizens in Census Bureau data are illegal immigrants, which we would expect to make welfare use for non-citizens in general low, as those in the country without authorization are barred from almost all federal welfare programs.10 But like our prior analysis using the 2012 SIPP, this report shows that welfare use by households headed by illegal immigrants must be significant for the overall rate of welfare use among non-citizens to look as it does in this report.

    Examining Welfare Use by Household. A large body of prior research has examined welfare use and the fiscal impact of immigrants by looking at households because it makes the most sense. The National Research Council did so in its fiscal estimates in 1997 because it argued that "the household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed."11 In their fiscal study of New Jersey, Deborah Garvey and Thomas Espenshade also used households as the unit of analysis because "households come closer to approximating a functioning socioeconomic unit of mutual exchange and support."12 Other analyses of welfare use and programs, including by the U.S. Census Bureau, have also used the household as the basis for studying welfare use.13 The late Julian Simon of the Cato Institute, himself a strong immigration advocate, pointed out that, "One important reason for not focusing on individuals is that it is on the basis of family needs that public welfare, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and similar transfers are received."14

    The primary reason researchers have not looked at individuals is that, as Simon pointed out, eligibility for welfare programs is typically based on the income of all family or household members. Moreover, welfare benefits can often be consumed by all members of the household, such as food purchased with food stamps. Also, if the government provides food or health insurance to children, it creates a clear benefit to adult members of the household who will not have to spend money on these things. In addition, some of the welfare use variables in the SIPP are reported at the household level, not the individual level.

    Some advocates for expansive immigration argue that household comparisons are unfair or biased against immigrants because someday the children who receive welfare may possibly pay back the costs of these programs in taxes as adults. Of course, the same argument could be made for the children of natives to whom immigrants are compared in this analysis. Moreover, excluding children obscures the fundamental issue that a very large share of immigrants are unable to support their own children and turn to taxpayer-funded means-tested programs. In terms of the policy debate over immigration and the implications for public coffers, this is the central concern.

    https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen...lfare-Programs
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Senior Member stoptheinvaders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    3,374
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    Trump's 'merit-based' immigration reform plan 'makes sense' for America, Laura Ingraham says

    Now, does anyone have any doubt about Laura being a Forever Trumper regardless of the damage he does to this country?
    You've got to Stand for Something or You'll Fall for Anything

  4. #4
    Senior Member stoptheinvaders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    3,374
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs
    Compared to 35% of native households


    New "public charge" rules issued by the Trump administration expand the list of programs that are considered welfare, receipt of which may prevent a prospective immigrant from receiving lawful permanent residence (a green card). Analysis by the Center for Immigration

    In October, Donald Trump’s administration released a proposed rule that, if finalized, would affect a part of immigration policy known as “public charge.”


    If
    You've got to Stand for Something or You'll Fall for Anything

  5. #5
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Yes, I know, which is a good thing, so what is your point? Did you not know that Trump ran on merit-based immigration? He made his position on this clear as crystal in 2015 shortly after he announced his run for President. This was part of his 70 point plan to fix our immigration system. It was part of all the DACA deal bills. I've no idea why people are surprised or outraged by this.

    It's befuddling.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  6. #6
    Moderator Beezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    30,909
    What "makes sense" for America right now is NO immigration for a minimum of 2 years and extend it to 10.

    It will take us a long time to deport the 25 million illegal aliens and visa overstays who do not belong here!

    We want DACA and their DAPA parents deported!

    No more line jumpers or their sob stories. Two billion people on the planet have a sob story and a dream!

    Stop adding millions of more foreigners to the HEAP of this problem and their offspring.

    We need to get visa tracking in place, bio-metrics, DNA testing and stop this fraud, waste and abuse of our money and of our countries laws!

    We need to get these illegals off our voting rolls, out of our schools, and off our welfare, food stamps and out of our housing.

    Get them off our healthcare system...they are bankrupting us!

    This is a monumental mess.

    We need to END refugee, asylum, TPS programs! That is not the solution to their countries problems!

    END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IMMEDIATELY AND GIVE THEM A "CERTIFICATE OF CHILD BORN ABROAD".
    ILLEGAL ALIENS HAVE "BROKEN" OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM

    DO NOT REWARD THEM - DEPORT THEM ALL

  7. #7
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Yes, we need a 10 to 20 year Moratorium on All Immigration into the United States.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  8. #8
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    Yes, I know, which is a good thing, so what is your point? Did you not know that Trump ran on merit-based immigration? He made his position on this clear as crystal in 2015 shortly after he announced his run for President. This was part of his 70 point plan to fix our immigration system. It was part of all the DACA deal bills. I've no idea why people are surprised or outraged by this.

    It's befuddling.
    Trump ran on a lot of things during his campaign. He used what's knows as the "shotgun pattern," which means throw as much shot out there as you can in hopes of hitting something. Yes, Trump also ran on amnesty for illegals during his campaign. Example (excerpt):

    Trump: Deport Illegals, But Expedite The Return Of “The Good Ones” For Legal Status

    ED MORRISSEYPosted at 1:21 pm on July 30, 2015

    Is that a change from a hard-line immigration position, or an endorsement of it? The deport-then-immigrate position has long been the hard-line position on immigration on the Right, although it does have one twist that’s outside the orthodoxy. Donald Trump explained this to CNN’s Dana Bash in an exclusive interview last night, along with his thoughts on health care, which are decidedly less hard-line:

    Trump said Wednesday in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash that as president he would deport all undocumented immigrants and then allow the “good ones” to reenter the country through an “expedited process” and live in the U.S. legally, though not as citizens.

    “Legal status,” Trump suggested. “We got to move ’em out, we’re going to move ’em back in if they’re really good people.”

    For a blustering candidate whose rhetoric has snatched headlines and galvanized a sizable segment of the Republican base, Trump’s comments Wednesday represent his most detailed explanation into what he would do with the estimated 11-plus million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.

    He had previously suggested that he favors a “merit-based system,” but did not delve into his support of granting legal status, but not citizenship to undocumented immigrants he calls “the good ones.”

    https://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/...-legal-status/

    I think my new name for Trump is, Phony Pony!


    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  9. #9
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    The merit-based immigration plan has nothing to do with illegal aliens or illegal immigration.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  10. #10
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    The merit-based immigration plan has nothing to do with illegal aliens or illegal immigration.

    During his campaign the "merit-based" system he touted did include the "good" illegal aliens. Is there any such thing as a "good" illegal alien? Good and illegal is a contradiction.

    He had previously suggested that he favors a “merit-based system,” but did not delve into his support of granting legal status, but not citizenship to undocumented immigrants he calls “the good ones.”
    So obviously at the time he thought the "good ones" did warrant some degree of merit.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Trump to propose plan to make U.S. immigration more merit-based
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-15-2019, 09:14 PM
  2. WH IMMIGRATION PLAN WILL FOCUS ON BORDER SECURITY AND MERIT-BASED IMMIGRATION 7:24 PM
    By tonyklo in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-07-2019, 08:07 PM
  3. President Trump pushes for merit-based immigration
    By Jean in forum Videos about Illegal Immigration, refugee programs, globalism, & socialism
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-29-2019, 04:25 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-05-2017, 08:55 PM
  5. Trump to 'Clamp Down' On Immigration Through 'Merit Based' System
    By GeorgiaPeach in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-20-2017, 09:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •