Illegal Immigrants

Maybe removing the handouts to red states who take 3 times the gov assistance vs blue states, would make those bayou fish boaters get jobs and work like the rest of us?

there is 0 evidence that those receiving gov't aid in red states are red voters, and plenty of evidence showing that far more democrats than republicans receive government aid. That you focus entirely on region they live in rather than their politics... I'm sure you aren't being intentionally dishonest, right? It wouldn't hurt your argument if it turned out that in those red states, the majority of federal aid went to those living in the cities and voting blue? Prove me wrong, I'll wait.

Trump won 2/3rds of whites without a college degree. Reality is opposite of your claim and in line with mine. Trumps voter base is also older, many needing food stamps, healthcare and other programs.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/gop-base-poverty-snap-social-security/516861/

I found earlier was interesting to find that Democrats are on average richer, which kind of doesnt fit with the "voting for free stuff" label that they are given.

The truth is completely opposite of the rights talking points. Of course Dems are richer. They go to school longer/have more education, make more money.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/12/18/a-bipartisan-nation-of-beneficiaries/

sorry, but theatlantic hardly trumps pew. Your version of reality also have flying pigs? You are more likely to be receiving government aid if you're a democrat across nearly every demographic. Sorry, but the truth hurts. The ONLY place where republicans are drawing more is old people.

Btw, why is it that these liberal arguments are always based around race? The idea that people of different skin colors may think alike doesn't come into the equation?

"While politically, congressional Republicans have focused on reducing spending on federal entitlement programs, the Pew Research survey found the U.S. to be “a “bipartisan nation of beneficiaries.”

The survey found that significant proportions of Democrats (60%) and Republicans (52%) say they have benefited from a major entitlement program at some point in their lives. So have nearly equal shares of self-identifying conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) and moderates (53%). The programs were Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment benefits and food stamps.Those who have a high school diploma or less formal education are roughly three times more likely than college graduates to have been helped."

Thank you for verifying my information through Pew.

He already knows this.
We've had this debate more than once last year, also with laonsite.

The last time, OhWell posted this very chart, highlighting the party percentages with a half red bracket symbol yet ignored the bottom where the breakdown was equal in terms of conservative, moderate, liberal ideology.

Add to that that while both major parties have been losing members over the years, the Republicans has been hemorrhaging them at a greater rate. Many who identify as independant formally belonged to these parties, and if factored in, their voting patterns may skew what is in effect Republican or Democrat, or at least what they officially identify as.

PLus these are polls dependent on what people report about themselves. Accuracy, agenda, and honesty are questionable.

"While the two parties are sharply divided over entitlement spending, the differences in the proportions of Republicans and Democrats who have received entitlements is fairly modest: 60% of Democrats, 52% of Republicans and 53% of independents have benefited from one of these six major classes of federal entitlement programs. And when the lens shifts to political ideology, the survey finds virtually no difference in the share of conservatives (57%), liberals (53%) or political moderates (53%) who have been assisted by at least one entitlement program.
Taken together, the last two findings help explain another result. In the recent presidential election, about six-in-ten (59%) of those who say they voted for President Obama had received entitlement benefits—and so had 53% of those who supported Republican challenger Mitt Romney."
"As for political characteristics, Democrats are more likely than Republicans or independents to have received poverty or unemployment assistance (47% vs. 34% and 41%, respectively)."
"Democrats (37%) are more likely than Republicans (30%) or independents (28%) to have received entitlements from two or more government programs."

Thanks for burying your head in the sand yet again.

Look, what you are claiming is that it is the libs in red states causing red states to need so much Gov assistance. That is such B.S. If red states are controlled by Republicans, (which they are) it is up to the Republicans to control the states spending and to create the budget, decide appropriations and decide how to fund programs that are created. In almost all cases, Republicans do a terrible job of controlling their need for federal assistance. Sorry, but there are a lot more Dems in California than there are in Mississippi. Last year California paid off 5 billion dollars of debt incurred while Arnold was Gov and has billions more now in surplus. How is Mississippi doing?

If that was the case, those states wouldn't be red, they'd be blue. Cities are going to have higher concentrations of those recieving assistance because they have larger concentrations of people living in them.
You're not going to see big glaring dots on the map in rural areas because the population is more thinly spread.

If that was they case in terms of recieving assistance*

Actually the conclusion I got from this is simple: A higher percentage of democrats draw government aid than republicans. There are more democrats than republicans. Regardless of which states draw the most - the VOTERS that draw the most are blue. You really can't argue with the numbers. Point at red states all you like and say "BUT THESE PROGRAMS ASSIST YOU MOST!" but the fact is - federal aid is federal, not state. Regardless of which states the recipients live in, most are democrats.

Boom. argument ended. http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-composition/ scroll down to party by income!

The argument wasn't about income though, it was about who receives federal assistance. They blamed the red states for most of the federal assistance, but federal assistance is FEDERAL. State borders are more or less irrelevant, individuals are all that matters. And across the nation, there are more democrats than republicans drawing federal assistance.

Cities? In rural states? Those are called those neighborhoods round these parts, and if you claim poor folks in trailer parks, the countryside, and small towns don't receive assistance, you need to review your 'facts.'

Places with more people living in them are going to have more people recieving aid by virtue of the fact that there are more people living in them to recieve it.
You're not going to rack up large numbers in the average county in Wyoming that has people living miles from the nearest neighbor.

Hate to break it to you, but not everyone who lives in a city is a Democrat nor on assistance. Since cities tend to be economic hubs (unless they're dying), the number of employed usually exceeds the number of unemployed.
Higher costs of living coupled with a lack of a living wage raises the need for assistance as well.

Stadiums! We got some of those too!
Like I said, we call those neighborhoods.

Splendid, Atlanta and Kansas City, their COMBINED populations under a million, both at the 480,000+ mark. Both predominently Democrat cities in predominently Republican states. Are those two bustling hubs of economic activity with those shiny new buildings the impoverished ghettos of welfare suckers you were talking about?

Have you ever seen the movie "The Wizard of Oz"?

No, is it any good?

proof? how do illegal immigrants have welfare. non citizens do, but that doesnt make them illegal.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-undocumented-immigrants-arent-stealing-your-benefits_us_5a144263e4b010527d6780b0
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/illegal-immigrant-benefits/

Not totally correct.

According to Pew Research, about 3.8 million illegal aliens have at least one child born in the U.S. (Anchor Baby). Under the WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) program, these children are eligible for nutrition programs, food stamps, and Medicaid.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/14/a-portrait-of-unauthorized-immigrants-in-the-united-states/

All illegal alien children are able to attend public schools at a cost of $5k - $8K per child depending on the state.

Illegal aliens earning less than $25K per year, that do file income taxes likely do not pay any tax and in fact would get refunds due to the income level. They would also get rebates for each child.

So yes, illegal aliens cost us money, estimated at $180-$290 Billion a year. (an exact number is hard to find but this is the range that seems to be agreed on.)

So...when you said Illegal Immigrants you actually meant US Citizens that were born here get aid.

yeah. but a product of illegal immigrants. it can go either way

If you could show me in the Constitution where the immigration status of the parent has any impact on the citizenship of someone born here?

Oh, there isn't? Huh.

Yeah, that means you're advocating for denying social benefits of an American citizen.

It's hard to know when the government refuses to check. Any attempt to even check for evidence of welfare abuse, or any other accountability measure, is decried as racist.
Now, your WIC example. In theory the WIC benefits are strictly for the child in question (it is an individual benefit, not a family one). Until the supreme Court revisits birthright citizenship , that child IS a citizen, and is therefore entitled to those benefits. So technically, that benefit is not going to an illegal immigrant.

And the illegal immigrant parents benefit by not having to cover the costs that WIC covers

For the citizen child.
If we separated the citizen child from the illegal parent to deport them (something I'm not against, by the way) our system would still be responsible for the cost of WIC and then some for the child.
What I'm saying, is when an illegal gets WIC for their citizen anchor baby, technically those benefits are for a citizen, not an illegal.
I'm aware there are several interwoven issues here, such as deporting the parent, and whether we should even give automatic birthright citizenship. But for now, the Supreme court has upheld birthright citizenship, and until they revisit it, the child IS a citizen. That entitles it to benefits that US citizens would be entitled to. WIC is just a poor example to use in this instance.

The point is, illegal immigrants *are* benefitting from welfare, either directly by emergency room healthcare and tax-free income (because they’re paid under the table), or indirectly through welfare like WIC and tax payer funded services like education for their children. This is the incentive the meme is talking about.

Thank you!

I feel like an NRA activist, but it is in the Constitution.

very informative. thank you. it was hard to find information on this.

Actually it's false.
While Welfare, WIC, EBT, and whatever else are funded by the Federal Goverment, they are administered by the States. That's money. The more flowing in, the more their economy benefits. Amazingly (I learned this almost a decade ago, verified it, but still can't believe it's a thing) some people, by reporting 2 residences in separate states, collect in BOTH. But all that info in the application down to the Social Security Number? Formalities. Cross referencing? For what, to deprive the state of that additional cash?
There is zero incentive to reduce the rolls at the local level, unless there are cutbacks at the Federal. And given the influence on that from politicians, that tends to be rare or short lived.

which is precisely the reason Democrats are FIGHTING the Wall SO VEHEMENTLY!

Thank you! Yes, the illegal influx creates the voter base the Demoncraps need to promote their socialist society..

But I understand the Donald realllly needs it for political reasons.

Lol sorry sometimes I get wrapped up in the substance and forget whats important... Upvotes and useless points
:P

America is great. Who wouldn't want to live here?

Evidently 3/4 of Hollywood actors, because they are all selling their beachfront paradise get-away homes in Malibu, and moving into tent cities on the streets of San Diago (along with Schumer and Pelosi) to show their solidarity to the homeless AMERICAN citizen.. (I'm joking of course.. because Schumer and Pelosi are actually supervising the upgrading of the walls around their many mansions prior to the next wave of Hondurans arriving at the USA border..)