Amy Klobuchar – ‘English should NOT be the national language’…

Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler:

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.

Original

Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler:

At present, the apportionment of House seats to each state and the drawing of district lines are based on total population — not citizenship.¹ The nation’s 22 million non-citizens, slightly less than half of whom are here illegally, are not evenly distributed across congressional districts.² As a result, there are many districts in which a large share of the population is not made up of U.S. citizens. It typically requires many more votes to win in districts comprised largely of citizens than in districts with large non-citizen populations. This raises important questions about the principle of “one person one vote” because the inclusion of non-citizens in apportionment and redistricting means that the number of citizens and voters varies enormously by district. This situation also has a partisan dimension, as the presence of non-citizens strongly correlates with support for Democratic candidates.

The findings show:

• The profound impact of non-citizens can be seen in the 12 districts with the lowest share of citizens, which have roughly the same population of voting-age U.S. citizens as the nine districts with the highest citizen shares. This means Americans in the high-citizen districts have only nine representatives in Congress while those in the lowest-citizenship districts have 12, even though the combined populations of citizens are roughly equal.³
• The number of citizens and vote totals in a district can differ partly because of the way House seats are apportioned between the states.⁴ But even within the same state, where district populations should be even, there were significant distortions caused by immigration in 2018.⁵
  • Texas: The 33rd district, where one-third of adults are not citizens, has 262,000 fewer voting-age citizens than the 21st district, where 6 percent are not citizens.
  • Florida: The 25th district, where more than one-fourth of adults are not citizens, has 199,000 fewer voting-age citizens than the 11th district, where 3 percent are not citizens.
  • California: The 40th district, where one-third of adults are not citizens, has 233,000 fewer voting-age citizens than the 4th district, where 4 percent are not citizens.
  • New York: The 14th district, where nearly one-third of adults are not citizens, has 172,000 fewer voting-age citizens than the 27th district, where 1 percent are not citizens.
• District populations also vary in the number of citizens as they grow at different rates after redistricting occurs every 10 years. But the data from soon after the 2010 census still shows very large differences within the same states.⁶
  • Texas: The 33rd district, where more than one-third of adults were not citizens, had 236,000 fewer voting-age citizens than the 21st district, where 6 percent were not citizens.
  • Florida: The 25th district, where more than one-fourth of adults were not citizens, had 176,000 fewer voting-age citizens than the 11th district, where 3 percent were not citizens.
  • California: The 40th district, where 38 percent of adults were not citizens, had 246,000 fewer voting-age citizens than the 1st district, where 3 percent were not citizens.
  • New York: The 15th district, where more than one-fourth of adults were not citizens, had 190,000 fewer voting-age citizens than the 27th district, where 1 percent were not citizens.
• The citizen share of the voting-age population also has a large impact on turnout. In the five districts with the largest non-citizen shares, roughly half as many votes were cast in the 2018 election than in the five districts with the highest citizen shares. In effect, each voter in the five highest-citizenship districts had about half the influence on the election as voters in the five lowest-citizenship districts.⁷
• In the 13 House districts where more than one in four adults is not an American citizen, only 158,000 votes were cast on average in the 2018 mid-terms. In contrast, in the 46 districts in which less than 2 percent of adults are not a citizen, 263,000 votes were cast on average.⁸
• It took many more votes to win a district comprised largely of citizens than it did in districts with large non-citizen populations in 2018. On average, the winning candidate received about 50 percent more votes in the 46 districts where less than 2 percent of adults are non-citizens than in the 13 districts where more than one in four adults is a non-citizen.⁹
• Districts with large non-citizen shares of the population tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic, while high-citizenship districts lean strongly Republican, but not as strongly as non-citizen heavy districts vote Democratic.
• Of 16 districts where more than one in four adults is not an American citizen, only one is represented by a Republican. Of the 29 districts where at least one in five adults is not an American citizen, still only one is represented by a Republican.
• In the 46 districts in which less than 2 percent of adults are not American citizens, 41 are represented by a Republican. In the 108 districts in which less than 3 percent of adults are not American citizens, 87 are represented by a Republican.

Original

I’m in tears 😂 pic.twitter.com/xrKWquVQ6Z

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) February 16, 2020

I’ve posted this before, but it’s worth posting again. Bernie!

https://twitter.com/ScottPresler/status/1228061103344713728

Two-Tiered System. @jsolomonReports says there are “two systems of justice,” one for Republicans and one for radical Dems and Deep State officials. #MAGA #AmericaFirst #Dobbs pic.twitter.com/J310NUOkbQ

— Lou Dobbs (@LouDobbs) February 15, 2020

SUPERCUT

From the Soviet Union, to China, to Cuba, to Nicaragua, to Venezuela, Bernie Sanders has never met a communist regime he didn't praise, regimes that killed millions of people in the 20th century.

This is your Democratic frontrunner. pic.twitter.com/X4ZKmFh3nj

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) February 12, 2020