Immigration

Hey Dems: Want to Help Immigrants? Stop Promising Universal Freebies

A Harvard study's findings show how not to fight the restrictionist disinformation campaign.

|

A recent Harvard study found that people in Western countries, including America, have succumbed to many restrictionist myths. The right-wing campaign against immigration has worked.

But that doesn't mean that immigration advocates should despair. The study's findings suggest that to the extent that they can make the case that immigrants don't need handouts to succeed, they have a shot at turning public opinion around.

The study, conducted by economists Alberto Alesina, Armando Miano, and Stefanie Stantcheva, administered online questionnaires to 24,000 respondents in six countries: U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden. The explicit aim was to study attitudes toward legal, not illegal, immigration. That is something that everyone, except for the most hardline restrictionists, allegedly favors, especially in America.

But on literally every count—the levels of immigration, the composition and basic characteristics of immigrants—negative stereotypes abound.

About 3 percent of the world's population lived outside its birth country in 1900. And 3 percent does so now. By any objective metric, the modern age has experienced no historic flood of immigration. But restrictionists have been beating the drum of "mass immigration" so long that people have come to believe it as true. In every country, the study found, people vastly overestimate the number of immigrants present.

The Americans in the study, for example, thought on average that 36 percent of the people in their country are immigrants. The actual figure is 10 percent for legal immigration. So the misperception is a whopping 22 percent above even the total combined share of immigration—legal and illegal, the latter being about 4 percent of the population. Every group—educated, uneducated; rich, poor; liberal, conservative—has fallen for this myth.

What's more, people also seem to have a warped idea of where immigrants come from and who they are. Americans in particular tend to overestimate the share of North African and Middle Eastern immigrants, particularly Muslim ones. Muslims are 10 percent of all immigrants (or less than 2 percent of the total U.S. population), but the study's respondents commonly believed they were 23 percent. At the same time, the respondents underestimated the share of immigrants who are Christian, systematically exaggerating the cultural distance between themselves and immigrants.

The misperceptions extend beyond the immigrants' cultural characteristics to their economic characteristics.

The study found that natives in all countries think they're better qualified and better employed than immigrants, which is somewhat paradoxical given that one reason for the West's nationalist revolt is supposedly that immigrants are outcompeting natives. American respondents especially tended to underestimate the share of highly educated immigrants, which is strange given that foreigners and their children have helped start 60 percent of the most highly valued tech companies in the U.S. and that 57 percent of the IT workforce in Silicon Valley is foreign-born. Relatedly, respondents tended to exaggerate both the share of immigrants who are unemployed and natives who are employed. Although both left-wing and right-wing respondents have a rosier view of natives' qualifications, right-wing ones have "significantly more negative misperceptions of immigrants," the authors note.

Where restrictionists have succeeded most spectacularly is in depicting immigrants as welfare queens.

The Harvard researchers presented respondents with a scenario in which two individuals, one with a foreign-sounding name like Mohammad or José and another with a standard native name like Jack, are identical in every respect—age, qualifications, jobs, and family size—except that Jack is a native and Mohammad or José is an immigrant who legally moved to America five years ago. The respondents were asked whether they believed Mohammad or the person with the immigrant-sounding name would pay more, the same, or less in taxes than Jack and whether he would receive more, the same, or less in government help. In America, over 25 percent of respondents said the person with the immigrant-sounding name would pay less in taxes than he collected in welfare, compared to Jack—even though immigrants are barred from collecting most means-tested federal benefits for five years. This reveals that about a quarter of the American public is outright biased against foreigners just because they are foreigners and not because they are illegal or poor or for any other objective reason.

To see if a financial incentive would have any effect in inducing the respondents to seek the right answer, the researchers told a subset of them that the first few who guessed closest to the correct response would get $10, $20, or $30. That didn't make any difference. More depressingly, while 49 percent of the respondents were willing to pay 50 cents to get the correct information, the ones who held the most unflattering views were the least likely to volunteer to pay anything, revealing how dogmatically people want to hang on to their misconceptions.

The study's findings pose a particular dilemma for Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), who wants to combine grandiose welfare schemes like free health care, pre-K, and college for everyone with generous immigration policies, because the mere mention of immigration reduces support for such schemes. Respondents who were asked about immigration became less concerned about inequality and less supportive of soak-the-rich schemes. In fact, they became more inclined to tax the bottom 50 percent more. They even expressed less willingness to contribute to private charity.

These results confirm what other studies have also found: that support for tax-and-spend redistribution is much lower in countries with more diverse populations. That suggests that Democrats might have to choose between their commitments to immigration and the welfare state.

So what's the good news? It's that despite decades of anti-immigration messaging, there are some restrictionist lines that the public is not falling for, especially in America.

Americans, the study found, believe strongly that immigrants should be considered "truly American" as soon as they become citizens and that they should be able to get citizenship quickly. Moreover, once immigrants do become citizens, most Americans believe the government should care for them equally. This means that restrictionists who want to scrap birthright citizenship or force immigrants to wait longer are out of step with mainstream American sentiment. By contrast, European respondents were much less inclined both to let immigrants become citizens quickly or consider them truly part of the country when they obtained citizenship. "Overall, the U.S. is most supportive of immigration," the study notes.

Most encouragingly, in every country the respondents attributed the economic success of immigrants to immigrants themselves and not any social advantage. Conversely, they were less inclined to attribute the success of natives to natives themselves, meaning people don't always believe the worst of immigrants and the best of natives. They especially softened after hearing a story about an immigrant who held two jobs to support a family while also going to school.

The best news is that once respondents were told about the correct share of the immigrant population, they were less inclined to think of the current level of immigration as a problem. That means that if immigration advocates can cut through the cloud of restrictionist misinformation and correct the record on immigration levels, it may be possible to get public buy-in for more generous immigration policies—although no doubt they will have to buttress the stats with real-life examples of immigrants getting ahead. The notion that natives, even working-class ones, resent the success of immigrants is overblown. In fact, as long as immigrants are seen as succeeding through their own grit, natives may have no real objection to them.

What is most likely to sour the public on immigration are the grandiose universal freebies that Sen. Warren and other contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination want to shower on everyone. Immigrants should be wary of Democrats bearing gifts.

This column originally appeared in The Week

NEXT: The Trouble with Tennessee's Lethal Injection Drugs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Promising the moon is what politicians do.

    Promising welfare freebies is the Democrats’ particular moon. You may as well ask them to promise capitalism and reduced spending while you’re at it.

    1. Much like how using the worst case, least likely scenario to scare people into supporting your Green New Deal is counterproductive (study after study show scare mongering about the environment, especially something as complex as AGW, is counterproductive) Democrats and progressives can’t stop promising free stuff. Another one Shikha could address is the constant litany of white America being replaced that is often a progressive talking point. See the Rev and how many times they have predicted that immigration will create a new, permanent progressive majority. And they are surprised that they have push back.

  2. Isn’t it weird that when a set of rules for the right way to do things exists, people are for the most part supportive of people who follow those rules? That is weird, right?

    1. Only to Shikha

    2. Libertarians are not known for supporting rules just for the sake of being rules. One might even say that is a distinguishing characteristic of libertarians, to not support rules just for the sake of being rules; that it is more a characteristic of a statist than a libertarian.

      1. But are the rules just there for the sake of being rules? That is the pertinent question. Libertarians tend to think (at least open borders supporting Libertarians) that immigration would work just fine without rules. Others have large doubts. There is stated reasons, they do exist, rather you agree with those rules or not. They are not just there for the sake of having rules.

      2. Once again I’ll reiterate that I’m not a libertarian just to get that out of the way.

        Now, I find myself generally more supportive of people who don’t steal or murder. I’m sure I would be so even without specific rules against stealing and murdering. I also find myself generally more supportive of people who cross the street at a crosswalk rather than just jumping out wherever and people who stop at stop signs rather than just driving right through. Those seem to me like reasonable rules to have for using the roadways.

        Having rules for entering a country with the goal of becoming a citizen doesn’t seem to me to be such a big ask if you’ve determined that the country is going to exist. I’ll grant you that the rules should not be overly complicated and should not take more than a couple weeks to complete.

        1. There is a difference between natural laws, aka natural rights or human rights, and legislation. Legislation seldom has anything to do with natural rights. Dutiful obeisance to legislation seldom has any basis in not hurting people and not taking their stuff.

          1. There is a difference between natural laws, aka natural rights or human rights, and legislation.

            I’m thrilled that you realize that.

            Dutiful obeisance to legislation seldom has any basis in not hurting people and not taking their stuff.

            Do you believe that a country should be able to exist? If you do, why?

            Do you agree with the rules in the Constitution? If you do, why?

            1. It’s possible that a country should be able to exist, while simultaneously considering border enforcement as nonetheless just a malum prohibitum.

        2. What if the rules say you will have to wait 20 years before entering the US, and some business owner offers you a job here?

          1. I’d say that’s probably a garbage rule that should be changed. As I noted at the end of my post, becoming a citizen should be fairly simple and take no more than two weeks.

            To address what you’re really getting at, if a non-citizen is invited to work by a citizen without it being necessary to become a citizen first, then it is up to the inviting citizen to see that the non-citizen has no need to receive anything other than what they can pay/trade for from other citizens.

            1. I don’t even think it’s necessary to make naturalization simple. Just residence, given that you have no criminal record and can support yourself. As you said, placing the burden of that assurance on the sponsor is reasonable.

              How does this not basically solve 99% of the immigration “issue?”

            2. Two weeks is too fast. Ten years is way too long. Something like a year or so to attain citizenship is probably reasonable.

    3. “…people are for the most part supportive of people who follow those rules…”

      THAT is an EXCELLENT summary of WHY I do not want ANYONE to fall afoul of the Cheap Plastic Flute Police!

      To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

      1. You remind or a crack whore character in the film ‘Deep Cover’ with Larry Fishburne. She’s always being annoying and loud and never shutting up. Yet really has nothing to say, and represents a malignant presence and influence. Later in the film she’s dead. Having finally OD’d. With Fishburne remarking how more more pleasant she appeared in death, as she was finally silent.

    4. When someone knocks on your door you ask and check them out before opening. If they are going to stay and live with you, you check further. Doesn’t mean locking everyone out but some natural precautions are sensible.

  3. “But that doesn’t mean that immigration advocates should despair.”

    I’m not worried. After all, we immigration advocates have Charles Koch and his $60,000,000,000 net worth on our side. Reason.com will continue to be the leading journal of billionaire-funded open borders advocacy. And our persuasion is working — the Democratic Party has effectively embraced open borders in all but name.

    #BillionairesKnowBest

    1. Thumbs up for Trump and his tax cuts for rich Californian snobs like me. Thanks a lot rubes!

      1. “Thumbs up for Trump and his tax cuts for rich Californian snobs like me.”

        Thumbs down for lying scumbags like you.

      2. Well I’m glad to see some people are doing OK in this abysmal economy. But remember — we’re in what Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman calls a global recession, with no end in sight. And as AOC has explained, everyone needs 2 or 3 jobs to survive, which is why we have a misleadingly low unemployment rate.

        #WorstEconomyEver

        1. You do understand that in almost any arena if you begin quoting AOC as your trusted source you are immediately labeled an millidiot and lose all credibility dumb ass!

          1. Parody account!

          2. It’s amazing that OBL’s parody account still snares people.

            1. That’s because he’s very good at it, and there are enough crazy people posting that he could easily be a nutty Left leaning Libertarian on any given post.

              1. Nah. The only “concern” that real progs have about the Koch fortune is hoping for it to be taken or destroyed. So OBL lets everyone know he’s kidding.

                The rev, on the other hand stays in character at all times. He’s a very good parody. Just look at all the replies he gets.

                #RevwaybetterparodythanOBL

                1. The jury is still out on the validity of the Rev as a parody. Unless you are referring to Kuckland as opposed to Kirkland.

            2. Poe’s law, it is very difficult for OBL to be ridiculous enough to distinguish him from say Tony, The Rev, LeaveTrumpAlone or any of the other kooks. Hell, sometimes it is difficult to differentiate him from Squirrely.

              1. Has Tony been posting? I haven’t seen him in a while.

                (Unlike Kirkland et.al, I like Tony causing trouble).

                1. I know there are several trolls people maintain are Tony in a sock.

                  1. The truth of this I am less certain of.

                    1. I doubt there’s any truth in that.

                    2. He did try a sock for awhile, but I haven’t seen him or his sock for a number of weeks.

        2. Yes, a fool to be sure.
          Saying she and young people have never seen prosperity, when they have seen nothing but prosperity, shows what a whacky bird she is.

          Having never seen serious adversity, spoiled people claim they are oppressed, when they are privileged, spoiled and ungrateful.

      3. You can’t even pay your mortgage. You’re another progtard scofflaw, like Arty.

    2. Nah. Let the Open Borders Uber Alles crowd despair.
      #AmericaFirst

  4. Do you want to know the number one way to increase support for immigration? Secure the border. Whether you agree with securing the border or not, that’s still a fact.

    1. “Secure the border.”

      LOL

      Go back to Breitbart with that alt-right nonsense.

      1. Interesting that now a simple thing that everyone should agree on, such as getting control of our borders, is “alt-right nonsense”.

        1. It is not simple at all. It means different things to different people. I am sure you and I would have severe disagreements about what constitutes a secure border.

      2. I wasn’t advocating. I was stating a fact.

    2. So how does one prevent a policy of “securing the border” from devolving into a War On Drugs-type of scenario, that steals endless liberty while trying to solve a problem that ultimately cannot be solved by government in the first place?

      1. Brilliant point, Jeff! “Border enforcement” inevitably leads to a FASCIST POLICE STATE!

        1. Just look at Canada forcissakes.

        2. Historically, tight border security correlates with oppressive regimes.

          1. Generally those borders are tight to keep people in.

          2. “Historically, tight border security correlates with oppressive regimes.”

            So Trump’s wall is to keep people in?

            1. Beat me to it, s76.

              1. You’re kidding, I hope.

      2. Pedo Jeffy, how does your home country Canada do it?

      3. It is too late to stop that. Border patrol regularly violates the rights of citizens while 50 to 200 miles from any border.
        If the border was firm we would be able to limit the border patrol to areas only adjoining the border. Less civil rights violations, not more.
        A border barrier is not a one stop solution, but it is a good first step to taking control of illegal immigration.

    3. Secure the border.

      I’ll ride with you if you can get me to the border
      The sheriff’s after me for what I did to his daughter…

      1. Did you give her a copy of Human Action?

        1. He did it like this
          He did it like that
          He did it with a wiffle ball bat

  5. “These results confirm what other studies have also found: that support for tax-and-spend redistribution is much lower in countries with more diverse populations.”

    OK then! We want less taxpayer-funded welfare? (I sure do!) To get there, we need more-free immigration policies!

    (Sad to say, this idea will NOT be approved of! Not by Trump the Father, nor by JesseAZ the Son, nor by The Holy Republican Church!)

    1. What’s the correlation coefficient between diversity and, what, redistribution as a % of GDP?

      Sounds to me like some Harvard employees had a bullshit conclusion and researched their way to it. Seriously, you’d have to be mentally retarded to buy the argument. It requires you to tell or believe some outright lies like “America (as well as the rest of The West) is less diverse or the welfare state is smaller now than in 1850.” It’s only true if you say stupid shit like ‘Healthcare is a human right’ and then don’t count free healthcare as welfare.

      1. And the ONE THING that Trump lackeys are the LEAST likely to want to discuss honestly, is that the illegal sub-humans are propping up Social Security! They are (at least partially) the tax slaves (who cannot benefit from their payments) while we, the native-born, mooch off of them!

        See “The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes” (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one… AKA http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/ For details about us natives mooching off of the taxes of the illegal sub-humans, for Social Security…

        Many-many of us NEED scapegoats, don’t we?

        1. As evidenced by your constant references to Trumpistas, Trumpers, and now Trump lackeys. It demonstrates total intellectual dishonesty on your part.

          1. If you are going to call out others for using scapegoats, it may be a good idea not to do so yourself.

            1. Evil-doers are scapegoats when we call them evil-doers? People of poor character are scapegoats when we call their poor characters to attention? How about first principles… “Don’t be evil” and “don’t exhibit piss-poor character” to start with? The rest will follow from there!

              To see a summary of the evils and piss-poor character of Trump, see
              http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

              “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet”

              1. Branding 48% of the public evildoers is scapegoating. No matter how you try and justify it. Labeling those who disagrees with evil is scapegoating. Period.

                1. What is even funnier, is if you talked to my mother or my friends you would find out how hard I tried to convince people not to vote for Trump.

                  1. “…how hard I tried to convince people not to vote for Trump.”

                    Awesome soldiermedic76!!! Awesome!

                    1. Granted, since most lived in states where it really didn’t matter, I did it more to promote a protest vote then anything else. Luckily I lived in a state that Hillary was never going to win, so strategically voting my conscience was easy for me. If it had been a battleground state, it would have been much less clear who I would have voted for. I value logic and pragmatism, and Game Theory is almost always a valid theory to apply.

                2. “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet” was about Trump, not about the 48% of us. As I have written before, I can VERY easily forgive those who voted for Trump, not Hillary, at the general election, because Hillary is-was very scary (in different ways) as well. I honestly don’t know who I’d have voted for, there… But was saved by the Libertarian option! … Voting for Trump (whose bad character was already well known, well documented) at the “R”-primary? I find myself FAR less forgiving for that!

                  1. You bely this rather benign comment with your upthread statement about Trump’s lackeys and you past comments attacking anyone who even remotely defends one of Trump’s actions as Trumpistas, Trumpet’s etc.

                    1. When Trump… Supports deregulation, supports sensibly lowered corporate taxes, more oil and gas drilling, less EPA over-reach, more vaping freedom (I’ll bet I am missing a few), I support Trump, and will say so, and call NO ONE a Trumpista about these things.

                      Endless protectionist trade wars all over the planet, and the scapegoating of immigrants, though? There, I find that reason and reasonableness gets me exactly nowhere!

                    2. So you admit you scapegoat?

                    3. I “scapegoat” those who deserve the blame… Those who have scarcely one iota of tolerance or broadmindedness, or sense of looking for the long term instead of the short term, have too much self-righteousness and too little “enlightened self-interest.” Pure selfishness is in the long-term interests of no one!

                      As M. Scott Peck remarked, no viable philosophy is going to be without “paradox”. So, I believe in, “tolerate all but intolerance”. But that’s intolerant, right? Jesus Christ is a personal hero of mine… A very loving and humble human being! Yet he said some cruel and vicious things about those in his day, who deserved it… Especially the Pharisees of his day!

                    4. Sqrsly is lying again. He now uses trumpistas to attack anyone who disagrees with his insane ramblings. He does this constantly. He has never praised Trump for anything, another lie. He even attacks you for teaching him the meaning of words.

                      Sqrsly is too insane to argue honestly. Just laugh at him.

                    5. So here comes JesseAZ with his constant lies and inability to EVER admit ANY mistakes!!!

                      All I can say is:

                      Readers, beware! Do not be deceived by JesseAZ! JesseAZ does NOT believe that LIES are bad in ANY way! Only ACTIONS matter, ethically or morally! See https://reason.com/2020/01/01/trumps-inartful-dodges/#comment-8068480
                      “Words are words dumbfuck. Actions are where morals and ethics lie.”, says JesseAZ. When confronted with offers of hush money, illegal commands (from a commanding military officer), offers of murder for hire, libel, slander, lies in court, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, inciting riots, fighting words, forged signatures, threatening to kill elected officials, false representations concerning products or services for sale… these are all “merely” cases of “using words”. Just like the Evil One (AKA “Father of Lies”), Jesse says lies are all A-OK and utterly harmless! So do NOT believe ANYTHING that you hear from JesseAZ!

                      Also according to the same source, JesseAZ is TOTALLY on board with dictatorship (presumably so long as it is an “R” dictator that we are talking of).
                      With reference to Trump, JesseAZ says…
                      “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

                      I say again, this is important…
                      “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”
                      We need a BRILLIANTLY persuasive new movie from JesseAZ to “Wake Up, America!”, to flesh out the concept that “The Triumph of The Will of The Trump, Trumps All”! Including the USA Constitution. In fact, USA military personnel should start swearing allegiance to Trump, NOT to some stupid, moldering old piece of paper!
                      Previous Powerful People have blazed a path for us to follow here, slackers!!!

                      JesseAZ has never, and presumably never will, admit to verbal over-reach… Trump is above the Constitution! NOT vice versa!

                  2. Thank you for admitting to my original point.

                    1. I do try to be honest; I will even, from time to time, admit to ignorance and mistakes…

                      Thanks for mostly being a honest and above-board poster! I don’t smell any hidden motives from you…

              2. The ever-popular “But it’s okay when I do it BECAUSE I’M RIGHT!” technique, much-beloved of lefties.

                1. That’s a VERY good description of Trump! It’s OK when Trump does it, because Trump is ALWAYS right!

                  To see a summary of the evils and piss-poor character of Trump (who is, however, ALWAYS in the right!), see
                  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

                  “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet”

        2. Illegals paying extra is the price they pay for being here. And not enough at that.

        3. Moreover, once immigrants do become citizens, most Americans believe the government should care for them equally. This means that restrictionists who want to scrap birthright citizenship or force immigrants to wait longer are out of step with mainstream American sentiment.

          Logic fail. There is no connection to birthright citizenship.

          Not bad overall for Shikha.

        4. And the ONE THING that Trump lackeys are the LEAST likely to want to discuss honestly, is that the illegal sub-humans are propping up Social Security!

          To be fair, the dishonesty in the discussion started well before Trump ran.

          The welfare state is overtly and unequivocally a pyramid scheme. Trump lackeys may not like to talk about the fact that they got suckered in and might receive some payout, but the side that’s lying by saying more inclusive pyramid schemes are generally smaller is being actively disingenuous.

        5. The Atlantic is a poor source for this type of information to be trustworthy.
          No one who is against unlimited illegal immigration thinks others are sub human, is this you projecting onto others??
          Illegals do contribute a small amount to social security, but it is not significant in terms of the unfunded obligations already in place. You assume all illegals work and pay taxes, when many work under the table and pay no taxes…………………
          I see you have found your needed scapegoats and like most scapegoaters you have missed the mark completely.

          1. Sqrsly is a poor source for anything.

            1. Insane rants?

      2. I didn’t read the article cause ya know Shikha. So I’ll take your word for it.

    2. I’m happy that your insane mind had enough room in there for me to own it.

  6. One- they’re not freebies. It’s what you get for tax money (which you can be for/against, who cares.)

    Two- It sounds more like Americans need to stop being bigoted idiots than anything.

    1. Americans need to stop being bigoted idiots

      Obviously the solution is to provide require free trips abroad for every American.

      1. I’ve always wanted to move to Mexico. Turns out you can’t get free healthcare and rent subsidies down there. Go figure. Tried immigrating to Canada, same shit. They were all about ya gotta have a job and have a big pile of cash.

    2. It sounds more like Americans need to stop being bigoted idiots than anything.

      You are aware that the study was conducted by Americans, right?

      Sounds to me like people are stupid and will believe anything they’re told. Even when they know Shikha ‘The Scorpion’ Dahlmia is promising not to sting them with immigration stupidity.

    3. “One- they’re not freebies. It’s what you get for tax money (which you can be for/against, who cares.)”
      Most of us are well familiar with that; it’s lefty thugs like you who promise it won’t cost anything.

      “Two- It sounds more like Americans need to stop being bigoted idiots than anything.”
      Sounds to me like lefty thugs like you need to stop lying about free shit.

    4. I am glad that Mexicans are paying for the border wall.

      All that extra US tax Mexican illegals pay goes right into that US Treasury coffer to be used on the border wall.

  7. If only we had 36% immigrants. My house in California would be worth even more and my love for Trump and his tax cuts for rich people like me would be even greater.

    1. “If only we had 36% immigrants.”

      If only we had zero lyi8ng scumbags like you.

    2. Drumpf may have cut your taxes. But like Paul Krugman predicted, the market will never recover from the hacked election of 2016. Your investments have undoubtedly tanked over the past 3+ years.

      1. Krugman? Tchyuh! As if.

        I prefer to get my inaccurate analysis and predictions from REAL experts. Like Paul Ehrlich. (is he dead yet? I’ve long said that would improve his accuracy.)

    3. Is it really your house when you don’t pay the mortgage?

    4. You don’t have a home AmSoc. You defaulted I’m the three mortgages you had on that refrigerator box. Now you suck dick for drugs.

  8. “The study found that natives in all countries think they’re better qualified and better employed than immigrants, which is somewhat paradoxical given that one reason for the West’s nationalist revolt is supposedly that immigrants are outcompeting natives.”

    Working for 1/3 price and being paid under the table is a form of competing, I guess.

    1. It certainly is a form of competing. If you can do the same job at 1/3 the price, yeah, you are in some sense more efficient, contributing to lower production costs.

  9. How does a 57% foreign workforce not prove your 10% legal immigrant number wrong which as normal you exclude the illegals which will get you back to the 36% number people belive.

  10. How many immigrants has America accepted in the last couple decades?

    North of 25 million illegal, and millions more legal. That kinda blows the 3% claim out of the water.

    1. According to these wackos we should be letting billions more, and have actual Americans pay for them.

  11. I mean, it’s possible they want to help immigrants. Or it’s possible they just want the votes.

    1. #2 for the win.

  12. There are 9 billion people in the world and more and more of them have access to the internet, which gives the information on how to get to Europe and the US. They are rising above the level of poverty where the main concern is getting enough food and starting to get the resources to put that new information to use.
    Probably only 4-500,000,000 would get to the US before it got so bad that it was no longer a good destination if Ms Dalmia has her way.

    1. But think about HOW bad it would have to get before Western Europe and North America were NOT better places to live than the shitholes that are sending most of the immigrants north now. I’d say your estimate is on the low side.

  13. given that foreigners and their children have helped start 60 percent of the most highly valued tech companies in the U.S. and that 57 percent of the IT workforce in Silicon Valley is foreign-born

    Google, Amazon, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Paypal… each one a paragon of individual liberty and the absolute virtue that is diversity. Nary a whiff of xenophobia, social adversity or insensitivity, nepotism, or generally idiotic groupthink out of *those* 57+% diverse workforces. Just imagine how much better the world would be if more companies were as diverse as these examples from the IT community. Just imagine how much more free this country would be if companies like that didn’t just control networking and media but service and the production of food and goods as well!

  14. Smart people aren’t trying to persuade the clingers.

    The better move is to stomp them in the culture war. Until replacement.

    1. You should watch JRE #1419.

    2. Hi LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian

    3. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
      February.3.2020 at 1:20 pm
      “Smart people aren’t trying to persuade the clingers….”

      As if asshole bigot here had any idea what smart people do.

  15. It would also help if we stop demonizing anyone who says “hang on” when responding to unrestricted open borders. And perhaps not jailing them would also be a good start.

    1. Nope. Wrong.

      We need to use the Shikha Dalmia approach — remind people that “border enforcement” is morally comparable to slavery. This frames billionaire-funded open borders advocates as the modern abolitionists, and immediately gives us the moral high ground.

  16. Hey, how about taking the whole ‘these people are not criminals’ thing out behind the barn and killing it with an axe? I know what you mean; MOST of the illegal immigrant population doesn’t break the law in serious ways. But the ‘close the borders’ crowd is correct when they say ‘if they crossed the border illegally, they have committed a crime and are therefore criminals’. And scolding them for that perception convinces nobody.

  17. The Immigration Act of 1882 was the very first general immigration statute in the U.S., so the “public charge” basis for exclusion of an applicant for a visa has existed for as long as we have had immigration laws. Here is the current version of the “public charge” provision, as codified at 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(4):

    [A]liens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States: . . . (4) Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

    There are also other more recent statutes that bear on this issue. For example, 8 U.S.C. Section 1601, enacted in 1996, contains the following language:

    Self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law since this country’s earliest immigration statutes. . . . It continues to be the immigration policy of the United States that . . . aliens within the Nation’s borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations, and . . . [that] the availability of public benefits not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States.

    That seems rather clear. So how is the administrative state under a Democratic (Clinton) administration going to nullify this? Simple. In May 1999 the then Immigration and Naturalization Service issued a document that they called Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds. In that document, they purported to define the concept of being a “public charge” as including only “receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at Government expense.” But wait! How about the vast array of non-cash in-kind benefits and handouts that are in fact the principal ways in which our government maintains tens of millions of people as public charges? Those were simply defined away as not counting.

    As a further indicator of the rank cynicism going on, recall that the year of the major federal welfare reform, the one that severely restricted and limited the availability of cash welfare, was 1996. What followed after 1996 was an explosion of the in-kind benefits, the biggest of which are Medicaid, food stamps (SNAP) and public housing. Today, there are some 83 federal “need based” welfare and handout programs, of which 76 are in-kind and only 7 are cash. The annual total of the in-kind distributions approaches $1 trillion. Annual federal spending on TANF — the main federal cash distribution program — is a paltry $16.5 billion, well less than 2% of the total distributions.

    So effectively, by its cynical definition of “public charge,” the bureaucracy said that only $16.5 billion of government’s annual distribution of resources counts toward making the determination, and the other $900+ billion or so does not count and can be ignored. Thus may we admit millions who will be living primarily off the government, right in the face of a statute making it the “policy of the United States that . . . aliens within the Nation’s borders not depend on public resources.”

    https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2019-10-17-maneuvering-to-force-the-us-to-accept-immigrants-who-will-become-public-charges?rq=daniels

    1. All it takes is a phone and a pen.

    2. You are buried deeper in the depths of public policy analysis than is healthy when you can write “…a paltry $16.5 billion”.

  18. “Muslims are 10 percent of all immigrants (or less than 2 percent of the total U.S. population)”

    So, people are right about immigrants being unrepresentative of the general population, and just exaggerate the extent a little?

    Oh, and at the beginning of the Obama administration, it was under 1 percent. He managed to double the percentage of Muslims in America in under a decade.

    1. That’s what I thought while reading it. We tend to ‘over shoot’ perception on so many things. This is not surprising and it wasn’t that bad.

  19. Illegal immigrants can’t get welfare. Because they’re illegal. And legal immigrants can’t get welfare either, except in very narrow cases. Even in Commifornia. It’s a myth.

    The children of immigrants can get free public schooling. But that’s not welfare. And they can go to the hospital emergency room for “free” medical care in emergencies. But that’s still not welfare. US citizens without a dime to their name can do exactly the same. Because doctors don’t ask for your papers please. Duh.

    But there’s little to no federal funds going to immigrants, and none at all to illegal immigrants. THE NARRATIVE IS WRONG! Just because it’s a narrative does not mean it’s true. Shock!

    https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-immigrants-and-public-benefits/

    1. Illegal immigrants can’t get welfare. Because they’re illegal. And legal immigrants can’t get welfare either, except in very narrow cases. Even in Commifornia. It’s a myth.

      Unfortunately, it’s a little more complicated than this. Many illegal immigrants use fake credentials which *might* allow them to get certain benefits. I’m not saying that illegal immigration is draining our welfare coffers, but I don’t have any data on it. And from what I read, most studies have scant data on the subject, even the studies which aim to show that very little is received in the way of welfare by such undocumented workers.

      Example, here’s an article which aims to show that undocumented workers are actually contributing to social security. However, the article (unintentionally) shows that many undocumented workers carry fake credentials– allowing them to do so.

      Undocumented workers typically use a fake SSN or someone else’s SSN when applying for salaried jobs. Only a handful of U.S. states require employers to check an employee’s eligibility and their SSN through E-Verify, a Department of Homeland Security database. Other states have varying levels of E-Verify requirements, from partial to none.

      Undocumented immigrants’ payments into the Social Security funds become a murkier matter when they are self-employed. By law, anyone earning an income while in the United States is required to pay taxes, even if they are breaking other laws in doing so.

      What are the consequences of all these fake credentials? I don’t know.

      Then of course there was the infamous California lawmaker admitting that every illegal alien he know, including members of his family had fake id so they were able to navigate public life with impunity.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.), thanks MUCH for the link! Links are too rare around here!

        “What are the consequences of all these fake credentials? I don’t know.”

        Not a whole bunch, except that Social Security gets propped up! The feds LIKE that! So the feds make showcase walls and meat-packing raids, pretending to “protect” us. Meanwhile, local cities and States pick up spending mandates about emergency rooms and educating the kids. So different branches of Government Almighty have different bennies v/s costs, and different axes to grind…

        1. Yeah I’ve always suspected that employer withholding paid to the U.S. Treasury on fake SS numbers gets no scrutiny at the IRS. It’s a win win proposition for the government. All of the tax and no beneficiary. I don’t know but I doubt it’s easy to defraud SS with a fake number. They know everything about me from the hospital I was born in, who my parents were and where they were born, to every penny of income I’ve claimed and every address I’ve ever lived at going back 6 decades. I’m pretty sure they know which numbers are fake but they don’t care. Instead we turn businesses into immigration cops with everify bullshit.

      2. One can look at California housing justice mandate bills. State government enforced housing density mandates, responsibilities that include below market units on 25% of development. Where does it end? If 50 million migrants want to move to the bay area, who pays for all of the union built housing, infrastructure, teachers unions- its another soak the rich through authoritarian government. The state wants to mandate population growth via migration directly to taxpayers/homeowners. The democrats want to expand HUD, every single one of them.

        Lets not promise freebees, lets abolish them at the federal level. If the states want to hand out freeshit, have at it.

      3. > What are the consequences of all these fake credentials?

        It means they can contribute to Social Security, but are unable to draw from Social Security. Unlike many citizens, they end up being net tax payers.

        1. but are unable to draw from Social Security

          Why would you assume that? The same fake documents and info that allow them to pay in would allow them to apply for benefits.

          1. Yes, they can apply, but they will be laughed at!

            Illegal sub-humans “prop up” Social Security by paying in, and pulling NO benefits! To the tune of $10 to $12 billion per year, a few years ago… See details here…

            See “The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes” (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one… AKA http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/ For details about us natives mooching off of the taxes of the illegal sub-humans, for Social Security…

            1. Laughed at by whom? The same credentials and info used to contribute can be used to collect.

              1. Laughed at by the SS bureaucrats who admin the system, who else would you expect?

                For those too lazy to rea

                1. Apparently you’re making the silly assumption that applicants for benefits are individually investigated to determine if they’re legitimate.

        2. That wasn’t quite my question. My question is, if you can obtain fake social security credentials, does the existence of those easily-obtained false papers also allow you collect benefits somewhere else.

          My point is that simply saying “they can’t access welfare benefits because its illegal” is not entirely sufficient. That’s a bit like saying “Heroin use can’t be that high because it’s illegal”.

          I’m not saying that benefits ARE being abused, I’m merely saying that I don’t know… but given what we DO know: that there is widespread false identification credential use within the undocumented worker community, it seems reasonable to wonder.

    2. Illegal immigrants can’t get welfare. Because they’re illegal. And legal immigrants can’t get welfare either, except in very narrow cases. Even in Commifornia. It’s a myth.

      Let me just offer this data point and you can do with it what you will. My wife’s mother is a resident alien originally from Canada. She has been collecting Social Security Disability payments for near 50 years. She is in her 70s and is also collecting SNAP benefits monthly.

      1. Proof via anecdote. There’s a logical fallacy named after that, you know.

        1. No, I didn’t expect that you’d accept firsthand experience, but like I said, I felt it should be put out there anyway. I don’t expect that all immigrants are getting handouts that maybe they shouldn’t be, but I also don’t expect that no immigrants are getting handouts that maybe they shouldn’t be.

    3. Unfortunately:

      Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households

      Quotes and charts:
      A majority of non-citizens are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.

      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.


      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.

    4. The children of immigrants can get free public schooling. But that’s not welfare.

      They’re also eligible for free/reduced lunches and other district-provided meals. Which is welfare.

    5. Very disingenuous. A fine example of lying by telling (part of) the truth. Those illegals get almost nothing?

      “How about the vast array of non-cash in-kind benefits and handouts that are in fact the principal ways in which our government maintains tens of millions of people as public charges? Those were simply defined away as not counting.” (in 1996, by Clinton)

      “Today, there are some 83 federal “need based” welfare and handout programs, of which 76 are in-kind and only 7 are cash. The annual total of the in-kind distributions approaches $1 trillion. Annual federal spending on TANF — the main federal cash distribution program — is a paltry $16.5 billion, well less than 2% of the total distributions.”

      Misrepresent much?

  20. Hey Dems: Want to Help Immigrants? Stop Promising Universal Freebies

    There. That’s better.

  21. “identical in every respect—age, qualifications, jobs, and family size—except that Jack is a native and Mohammad or José is an immigrant”

    So…the survey-takers weren’t interested in actual differences between populations based on age, qualifications, etc?

    1. Qualifications are no way to determine if someone is suited to a job and are totally racist. Don’t you know that?

  22. “What is most likely to sour the public on immigration are the grandiose universal freebies that Sen. Warren and other contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination want to shower on everyone.”

    What public? The Democratic gamble is that the more immigrants we get, the more Democrats we get, and “the public” will hence be more favorable to Democratic giveaway schemes.

    1. Or you could accept the Democratic explanation that their sudden concern for promoting open borders is due to a principled dedication to freedom, true Americanism, etc., etc.

  23. To see if a financial incentive would have any effect in inducing the respondents to seek the right answer, the researchers told a subset of them that the first few who guessed closest to the correct response would get $10, $20, or $30. That didn’t make any difference. More depressingly, while 49 percent of the respondents were willing to pay 50 cents to get the correct information, the ones who held the most unflattering views were the least likely to volunteer to pay anything, revealing how dogmatically people want to hang on to their misconceptions.

    “Harvard Researchers Surprised To Learn They Can’t Pull Off A Razzle Dazzle Scam On The Average American.”

    1. Hey Average American: Jews will not replace us!

      1. What a stupid post.

        1. What do you expect?

          mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
          “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

    2. About 3 percent of the world’s population lived outside its birth country in 1900. And 3 percent does so now.

      These results confirm what other studies have also found: that support for tax-and-spend redistribution is much lower in countries with more diverse populations.

      3% diverse in 1900 and 3% diverse in 2020 so… compounded annually… the world is 3470% diverse (ignoring reproductive diversity). Since the welfare state is well less than 100% of GDP pretty much everywhere and has been since 1900, it’s pretty obvious that as diversity increases, the relative share of the welfare state.

      By the time we get to 50,000% diversity, the welfare state should be relatively non-existent!

  24. Once again Dalmia loves to continue conflating lawful immigration with illegal. Makes her no better than the ‘restrictionists’.

    4% of the population? Sounds low. But they’re still ILLEGAL and represent about 13 million people! That’s a small country and it’s not an issue that should be dismissed alone by percentages.

    It’s irresponsible to consistently ignore the illegal part.

    Immoral even. Not only for the native population but the people committing the crime.

    Until I see an actual article discussing this without conflating the issues, it’s all just cheap talk.

    And screw Harvard anyway.

    As for Europe, yeh well, theirs is a much more sordid issue.

  25. Welfare for its own sake is enabling.

    Politicians who pimp it are enablers.

  26. I am really bad at common core math; please explain to me how this works – –
    Only 3% of the population lives outside of their birth country.
    The US legal immigrant population is 10% of our population.
    The US illegal population is another 4% of out population.
    The perceived 36% rate is 22% more than the actual 14% of the US population.

    1. There is that. Well only 3% of the world lives outside of their birth nation, a disproportionate amount come to a handful fo countries. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing but it does put into perspective a bit more some people’s worry about immigration. Especially when you take into account some of the troubles that Western Europe has had over the last decade (which is in large part their own doing, with their anti-intergration policies).

    2. Not just bad at math but also history. That only 3% live outside their birth country is an average over the world. That the US has 10% does not imply that they all came from the same country. So our 10% is made up of a part of the 3% from countries all over the world. The math make sense. Historically the US has been made up of a immigrants and so its not surprising that we have more than other country that are not made up of immigrants. I would also suspect that that 10% now is no where near the high point for immigrant that likely occurred in late 1800s to early 1900s.

  27. ‘Freedom for immigrants’ and ‘No More Ice’.

    I must be missing something. Have immigrants lost their freedom?

    ICE goes after illegals do they not?

    This is nuts.

    Where were these people when Obama was rounding up people and deporting illegals?

    The conflating and hypocrisy is nauseating.

    Are you a nation of laws or not, America?

    That’s the question to ask. If you are, then at the very base you all have to agree illegal immigration needs to be addressed.

  28. It’s all psychological. People are willing to support “their own tribe” with social welfare benefits, and will tend to make excuses for them no matter how evidently lazy. People are wary of those outside their tribe, and will refuse to support those outside of it even if they shoot themselves in the foot doing so. Racial resentment outweighs self interest.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/06/08/616684259/why-more-white-americans-are-opposing-government-welfare-programs

    1. You realize that NPR is gov’t-funded ‘news’, right?
      And regardless, yes, people are (properly) more helpful to those they ‘know’; did you or anyone expect otherwise?

    2. And white liberals are the only ones who don’t show an in-group preference. So it’s not just white people that you’re pointing the finger at here.

  29. “About 3 percent of the world’s population lived outside its birth country in 1900. And 3 percent does so now.”

    I don’t know about 1900, but the number now is actually 3.4%, but that’s not evenly distributed. The number of migrants is overwhelmingly from less developed countries (which is the majority of the world) to the few developed countries.

    “The Americans in the study, for example, thought on average that 36 percent of the people in their country are immigrants. The actual figure is 10 percent for legal immigration.”

    Per UN statistics, the actual number of immigrants in the United States was 47 million in 2015 (which is a lot more than 10%), and that was before the recent surge over the past couple years. Canada is now running at about 22% under a major push by the Trudeau administration, it’s at the point where some portions of the country aren’t even recognizable as Canadian.

    1. Toronto especially.

      Guess who they voted for and gave that clown a minority government?

      Justin believes Canada is a ‘post-national’ country without an identity – whatever he means by that because he’s such a feckless, remedial ideologue).

      But don’t you dare express concern by the alarming increase – more than what was promised by the Liberals. A party that not only has a problem with the truth but refuses to answer questions when confronted.

  30. Stop Promising Universal Freebies
    A Harvard study’s findings show how not to fight the restrictionist disinformation campaign.

    The fundamental failure of propagandists like Dalmia is the above contradiction. As long as the left is promising freebies to immigrants the desire not to pay for them is not based on disinformation. Maybe one day there can be an intelligent debate about immigration. But it can’t happen until open borders supporters stop lying about everything.

  31. Great article, with solid informative statistics. Thanks. Keep up the good work, Reason.

  32. Shikha is near rock-bottom on her descent into self-parody.

  33. Didn’t Milton Friedman make this point like 40 years ago? Get rid of the welfare state and very few would be against immigration. Also if we are going to have an honest discussion about immigration one has to make the distinction between legal and illegal. The vast majority of Americans have no problem with legal immigration, I have yet to hear of any complaints considering the 1.2 million who legally immigrated last year. The concern is those cheating the system and expecting some sort of welfare.

    1. Get rid of the welfare state and very few would be against immigration.

      Very few are against immigration now.

      one has to make the distinction between legal and illegal.

      In order for that distinction to exist, we must have immigration requirements, border security, and enforcement against illegal immigrants.

      The vast majority of Americans have no problem with legal immigration

      At CURRENT LEVELS, that’s probably true. If we threw open the gates to unrestricted legal immigration, that would instantly change.

  34. Shikha is a disaster every time she writes, and yet, there’s a little bit of a stopped clock being right twice a day in here. Yes, left-wing entitlements are largely the reason that people who want immigration restricted want it restricted.

    1. left-wing entitlements are largely the reason…

      I don’t believe that’s true. The certainty of extremely large increases in the numbers of new immigrants, and the deleterious effects that stampede would have on our way of life, is the main reason Americans oppose unrestricted immigration.

  35. Dems don’t care about immigrants and never have. Historically they have been anti immigration backed by the labor unions and their blue collar base. Only now they are talking about it since the Republicans have taken a more protectionist stance unfriendly to immigration.

  36. Wow, this article really soft pedals the problematic reality of mass immigration, even to claim it isn’t happening! No one knows how many illegal immigrants are here. I’m guessing (just like the author) at 25 million undocumented alone, just based on what I see and read. The issues are real and it’s articles like this that downplay that are a problem.

  37. What the author fails to note is that immigration like most things the far right believes has little to do with facts. Their beliefs are a matter of faith. So what Senator Warren promises has little effect. Offering less support to immigrants will not matter. For me there are two things I support for immigrants. Education for their children. Educating a child is never a waste of money. Second is basic health care. Why because I don’t want a sick immigrant preparing my food or taking care of my relatives in a nursing home.

    1. The other reason to support health care is you will wind up paying for it one way or the other.

      1. Which is a reason to keep the government out of it; thank you.

    2. “Why because I don’t want a sick immigrant preparing my food or taking care of my relatives in a nursing home.”

      Thank you, Dem. You have just made Shika’s point and convinced me to keep that border shut

  38. Reality is nobody is going to support real immigration reform legal or not. Trump policy is going in the direction of increasing barriers of all kinds and his base loves it. The democrats talk about it like it is a rainbow diversity issue which it is not. The dem base loves that.

    I am close to open borders in principle but not kidding myself about it. Not going to happen. At the very least giving residency and work visas to those already here would solve a lot of problems.

    Politicians do not necessarily want to solve problems. They have been playing political football with this for decades and will keep doing so. Fact is Americans are divided on the issue and politicians feed on that.

    1. No, the power elite want lots of illegal immigration. It creates an underclass that is very useful to them. They’re not going to mess that up with border security, immigration enforcement, or easier paths to legal resident alien status.

      1. Then there are the billions in contracts for detention centers, wall construction and myriad other services. Everybody wins.

        1. Haahahah!
          Damn, talk about gagging at a gnat. Those “billions” are dwarfed, and I mean dwarfed to a microscopically small concern, but the many, many billions set aside for providing services, education, health care etc., for the illegals who do get in.

          And as with any government function, the providers thereof work tirelessly to INCREASE whatever problem they are charged with fixing. In fact, it might be accurate to say that the ultimate “product” of any government agency is their own wages and departmental budget.

          The “immigration deterrence set-asides” you point to would be pocket change to military-industrial contractors. Teachers unions and public service employee unions would turn up their noses at the pittance. So, not a real big problem.

    2. Go Echospinner go! Echospinner kicking butt as usual!

      (Spot on all around; I wish that some of what you say, was’t true, but of course, it is true).

  39. The dog ate my homework!
    For those too lazy to read the link that I posted, here is an out-take:

    “Stephen Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, estimates that about 1.8 million immigrants were working with fake or stolen Social Security cards in 2010, and he expects that number to reach 3.4 million by 2040. He calculates that undocumented immigrants paid $13 billion into the retirement trust fund that year, and only got about $1 billion in benefits. “We estimate that earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally, and that this effect contributed roughly $12 billion to the cash flow of the program for 2010,” Gross concluded in a 2013 review of the impact of undocumented immigrants on Social Security.”

    Bottom line: We the native-born mooch off of these poor hard-working slobs, and then turn them into our scapegoats!

  40. Make $6,000-$8,000 A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss And for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot…Start here…. Read more

  41. Hi…………………….
    on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this – four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
    >>=====>>>> Detail of work

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.