• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Muslim ban already having effect

BobStackFan4Life said:
You didn't answer my question. And of course we aren't gonna take in 3 billion people. We'll take a miniscule percentage of them, often cherry picking the most capable people from that society, which contributes to a brain drain in the region, and pretend like we've done something to eliminate world poverty, while piling on the misery for our own unemployed, underemployed, poor, and homeless. Ultimately, we're taking resources from one disadvantaged group, that is already here, to give to another dosadvantaged group we're bringing in. It would be great if resources were limitless and everyone could be well taken care of, but that's not realistic. Especially when we've got a $20 trillion debt.
Click to expand...

So there is a disadvantaged group here currently that you would like to help, awesome. How?
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
You didn't answer my question. And of course we aren't gonna take in 3 billion people. We'll take a miniscule percentage of them, often cherry picking the most capable people from that society, which contributes to a brain drain in the region, and pretend like we've done something to eliminate world poverty, while piling on the misery for our own unemployed, underemployed, poor, and homeless. Ultimately, we're taking resources from one disadvantaged group, that is already here, to give to another dosadvantaged group we're bringing in. It would be great if resources were limitless and everyone could be well taken care of, but that's not realistic. Especially when we've got a $20 trillion debt.
Click to expand...

Brain drain? Didn't you just write that they refugees are all on public assistance?

Look, seriously, what is the aim of immigration policy. What types of people do we want to admit and what types of people do we want to exclude? That's all these vetting processes are supposed to be getting at. And, as yet, I have not seen anyone here or in the media answer some pretty simple questions about how exactly we vet people from these countries and what we are looking for when we vet.
 
Can't wait to hear about trump's deficit reducing plan to battle homelessness. That's something is long overdue.
 
Already making history! According to Gallup polling.

Days until >50% disapproval:

PresidentDays
Reagan727
Bush Sr.1336
Clinton 573
Bush Jr.1205
Obama 936
Trump 8
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
The point was obvious. At a time when we have a $20 trillion debt and millions of homeless and desperately poor people already in this country, whose needs are going unmet, we can't afford to take in and care for the world's poor, over 3 billion of which live on less than $2 per day. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence that refugees requirement substantial government assistance once they get here? Seems to me they're usually supported by charitable organizations, assimilated into neighborhoods where they find a job, work hard, and are generally successful. You could actually make the argument that we need many more immigrants, not fewer.
 
TexasDeac10 said:
Is there any evidence that refugees requirement substantial government assistance once they get here? Seems to me they're usually supported by charitable organizations, assimilated into neighborhoods where they find a job, work hard, and are generally successful. You could actually make the argument that we need many more immigrants, not fewer.
Click to expand...

You could make the argument we need more, if you were completely oblivious to the facts.
C3V4_2OVMAAZxqj.jpg


As far as other immigrants:
In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs.

Welfare use is high for both new arrivals and well-established immigrants. Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48 percent access welfare.

No single program explains immigrants' higher overall welfare use. For example, not counting subsidized school lunch, welfare use is still 46 percent for immigrants and 28 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 44 percent for immigrants and 26 percent for natives.

Immigrant households have much higher use of food programs (40 percent vs. 22 percent for natives) and Medicaid (42 percent vs. 23 percent). Immigrant use of cash programs is somewhat higher than natives (12 percent vs. 10 percent) and use of housing programs is similar to natives.

Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest.

Many immigrants struggle to support their children, and a large share of welfare is received on behalf of U.S.-born children. However, even immigrant households without children have significantly higher welfare use than native households without children — 30 percent vs. 20 percent.

The welfare system is designed to help low-income workers, especially those with children, and this describes many immigrant households. In 2012, 51 percent of immigrant households with one or more workers accessed one or more welfare programs, as did 28 percent of working native households.

The large share of immigrants with low levels of education and resulting low incomes partly explains their high use rates. In 2012, 76 percent of households headed by an immigrant who had not graduated high school used one or more welfare programs, as did 63 percent of households headed by an immigrant with only a high school education.

The high rates of immigrant welfare use are not entirely explained by their lower education levels. Households headed by college-educated immigrants have significantly higher welfare use than households headed by college-educated natives — 26 percent vs. 13 percent.

In the four top immigrant-receiving states, use of welfare by immigrant households is significantly higher than that of native households: California (55 percent vs. 30 percent), New York (59 percent vs. 33 percent), Texas (57 percent vs. 34 percent), and Florida (42 percent vs. 28 percent).

Illegal immigrants are included in the SIPP. In a forthcoming report, we will estimate welfare use for immigrants by legal status. However, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of immigrant households using welfare are headed by legal immigrants.

Most new legal immigrants are barred from welfare programs when they first arrive, and illegal immigrants are barred as well. But the ban applies to only some programs; most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify for at least some programs and the bar often does not apply to children; states often provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; naturalizing makes immigrants eligible for all programs; and, most important, immigrants (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth.

The heavy use of welfare by less-educated immigrants has three important policy implications: 1) prior research indicates that illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly less-educated, so allowing them to stay in the country creates significant welfare costs; 2) by admitting large numbers of less-educated immigrants to join their relatives, the legal immigration system brings in many immigrants who are likely to access the welfare system; and 3) proposals to allow in more less-educated immigrants to fill low-wage jobs would create significant welfare costs.
http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
Already making history! According to Gallup polling.

Days until >50% disapproval:

PresidentDays
Reagan727
Bush Sr.1336
Clinton 573
Bush Jr.1205
Obama 936
Trump 8
Click to expand...

It's only going to climb too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yeah it's a misleading chart because it is a snapshot at any given time, refugees over time integrate and have roughly equal percentages needing assistance as native born.
 
DeacMan said:
The assistance thing is all well and good to discuss. But that is not at all at issue with this EO.
Click to expand...
Of course not, it's just BSF trying to apply logic to his xenophobic nationalism.
I'm sure David Duke can type up a compelling treatise about why black people and Jews are bad for the country as well.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
Refugees need lots of help? Count me as totally shocked
Click to expand...

The use of welfare among immigrants in general tends to be higher than the native population, as the rest of the post which you conveniently decided to ignore, makes clear.
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
Yeah it's a misleading chart because it is a snapshot at any given time, refugees over time integrate and have roughly equal percentages needing assistance as native born.
Click to expand...

Fucking hell. You people really are immune to facts. You just make up shit to fit your beliefs. It's why it's impossible to reason with you. You all prefer to live in Fantasy Land instead of facing harsh realities. Read the rest of the post.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Of course not, it's just BSF trying to apply logic to his xenophobic nationalism.
I'm sure David Duke can type up a compelling treatise about why black people and Jews are bad for the country as well.
Click to expand...

"David Duke/Westboro Baptist/Nazi/Racist/Sexist"- you guys are seriously dumb when it comes to the issue of immigration. Facts and reason don't matter to any of you. All you've got are the same tired insults.
 
Department Of Homeland Security Response To Recent Litigation
Release Date: January 29, 2017
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact: 202-282-8010

WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America's borders and national security.

Approximately 80 million international travelers enter the United States every year. Yesterday, less than one percent of the more than 325,000 international air travelers who arrive every day were inconvenienced while enhanced security measures were implemented. These individuals went through enhanced security screenings and are being processed for entry to the United States, consistent with our immigration laws and judicial orders.

The Department of Homeland Security will faithfully execute the immigration laws, and we will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism. No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; faithfully enforce our immigration laws, and implement President Trump’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-security-response-recent-litigation#
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top