ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 5 of 8
< 12345 678 >
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Trump Ending Welfare-Dependent Immigration
BucEyedPea 02:45 PM 08-13-2019
Saving Taxpayers Billions
[Reply]
Inspector 01:56 PM 08-14-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Still waiting...

Oh? Okay, feel free to pull up any quotes of democrats running on the policy of complete open borders. Please don't keep me waiting.
I'm not sure how to pull up quotes I hear people say when watching TV.

But keep waiting and I'll see if I can figure it out.

Old people suck with this new fangled technology ya know.
[Reply]
Mr. Kotter 02:05 PM 08-14-2019
In case anyone wondered about the source of Trump's xenophobic and racist ideas....

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/u...gtype=Homepage

** I've included this most relevant chart for the lazy TL/DR types


[Reply]
Marcellus 02:30 PM 08-14-2019
Originally Posted by Inspector:
I'm not sure how to pull up quotes I hear people say when watching TV.

But keep waiting and I'll see if I can figure it out.

Old people suck with this new fangled technology ya know.
Decriminalizing crossing the border, giving free healthcare and college to illegals is open borders.

Every Dem candidate on the first debate stage raised their hand to this.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 02:59 PM 08-14-2019
Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter:
In case anyone wondered about the source of Trump's xenophobic and racist ideas....
After calling Democrats communists in the past, I am shocked at how you roll with them using their Alinsky rhetoric.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 03:01 PM 08-14-2019
Originally Posted by carlos3652:
eh, I came from Argentina. The economy just collapsed yesterday based on elections that are bringing back a corrupt government that accepted bribes from drug lords (so they could promise money to the poor and keep the change). Hard Left Leaning views.

The US, with all its pitfalls, is the best place to live in the Americas. Change my mind.
I thought Argentina was socialist, just not full blown, long before any recent elections.
[Reply]
Otter 03:08 PM 08-14-2019
Trump Ending Welfare-Dependent Immigration, Saving Taxpayers Billions

John Binder

President Trump is set to save American taxpayers billions of dollars as his administration announces a new rule on Monday that will essentially ban welfare-dependent legal immigrants from permanently resettling in the United States.

A new regulation set to be published by the Trump administration will ensure that legal immigrants would be less likely to secure a permanent residency in the U.S. if they have used any forms of welfare in the past, including using subsidized healthcare services, food stamps, and public housing.

The regulation will be a boon for American taxpayers in the form of an annual $57.4 billion tax cut — the amount taxpayers spend every year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants.

The National Academies of Science released a report two years ago, noting that state and local American taxpayers are billed about $1,600 each year per immigrant to pay for their welfare, where immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households.

A recent Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) study notes that about 63 percent of noncitizen households in the U.S. use at least one form of taxpayer-funded welfare, while only about 35 percent of native-born American households are on welfare. This means that noncitizen households use nearly twice as much welfare as native-born American households.



In California — with the largest noncitizen population in the country at almost 11 million or nearly 30 percent of the state’s total population — more than seven-in-ten, or 72 percent, of households headed by noncitizens are on at least one form of welfare. Compare that to the findings that only about seven-in-twenty, or 35 percent, of native-born households in California are on welfare.

(Center for Immigration Studies)

Preventing Americans from being forced to foot the bill for welfare for newly arrived legal immigrants is hugely popular among U.S. voters. A Rasmussen Reports poll conducted in 2017 revealed that more than six-in-ten voters, or 62 percent, said they would support a plan that bans legal immigrants from receiving welfare for at least the first five years of their residency in the country. Roughly 67 percent of swing voters and nearly 60 percent of black Americans said they would support such a plan.

Another 76 percent of U.S. voters said welfare users should be mandated to prove that they are not in the country illegally before being allowed to obtain public benefits, including 74 percent of black Americans, 77 percent of swing voters, and 63 percent of Democrat voters.

Currently, there is an estimated record high of 44.5 million foreign-born residents living in the U.S. This is nearly quadruple the immigrant population in 2000. The vast majority of those arriving in the country every year are low-skilled legal immigrants who compete against working and middle-class Americans for jobs.
[Reply]
BucEyedPea 03:11 PM 08-14-2019
That chart is on page 2 of the thread in post #25

https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/show...8&postcount=25
[Reply]
patteeu 03:44 PM 08-14-2019
Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter:
In case anyone wondered about the source of Trump's xenophobic and racist ideas....

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/u...gtype=Homepage

** I've included this most relevant chart for the lazy TL/DR types

I don't see anything wrong with any of those organizations. What's the issue that you see?
[Reply]
Mr. Kotter 03:49 PM 08-14-2019
:-)

As if on cue....Otter posts a piece from the Center on Immigration Studies....one of the very groups under the Colcom group....

You can't make this shit up..... :-)


[Reply]
Mr. Kotter 03:58 PM 08-14-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
I don't see anything wrong with any of those organizations. What's the issue that you see?
Of course you don't.... :-)

Why a Banking Heiress Spent Her Fortune on Keeping Immigrants Out

Newly unearthed documents reveal how an environmental-minded socialite became an ardent nativist whose money helped sow the seeds of the Trump anti-immigration agenda.
….

She was an heiress without a cause — an indifferent student, an unhappy young bride, a miscast socialite. Her most enduring passion was for birds.

But Cordelia Scaife May eventually found her life’s purpose: curbing what she perceived as the lethal threat of overpopulation by trying to shut America’s doors to immigrants.

She believed that the United States was “being invaded on all fronts” by foreigners, who “breed like hamsters” and exhaust natural resources. She thought that the border with Mexico should be sealed and that abortions on demand would contain the swelling masses in developing countries.

An heiress to the Mellon banking and industrial fortune with a half-billion dollars at her disposal, Mrs. May helped create what would become the modern anti-immigration movement. She bankrolled the founding and operation of the nation’s three largest restrictionist groups — the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration Studies — as well as dozens of smaller ones, including some that have promulgated white nationalist views.
….

Today, 14 years after Mrs. May’s death, her money remains the lifeblood of the movement, through her Colcom Foundation. It has poured $180 million into a network of groups that spent decades agitating for policies now pursued by President Trump: militarizing the border, capping legal immigration, prioritizing skills over family ties for entry and reducing access to public benefits for migrants, as in the new rule issued just this week by the administration.
…..

Mrs. May’s story helps explain the ascendance of once-fringe views in the debate over immigration in America, including exaggerated claims of criminality, disease or dependency on public benefits among migrants. Though their methods radically diverged, Mrs. May and the killer in the recent mass shooting in El Paso applied the same language, both warning of an immigrant “invasion,” an idea also promoted by Mr. Trump.

In many ways, the Trump presidency is the culmination of Mrs. May’s vision for strictly limiting immigration. Groups that she funded shared policy proposals with Mr. Trump’s campaign, sent key staff members to join his administration and have close ties to Stephen Miller, the architect of his immigration agenda to upend practices adopted by his Democratic and Republican predecessors.

“She would have fit in very fine in the current White House,” said George Zeidenstein, whose mainstream population-control group Mrs. May supported before she shifted to anti-immigration advocacy. “She would have found a sympathetic ear with the present occupant.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/u...gtype=Homepage
[Reply]
Otter 04:08 PM 08-14-2019
Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter:
:-)

As if on cue....Otter posts a piece from the Center on Immigration Studies....one of the very groups under the Colcom group....

You can't make this shit up..... :-)

So, just out of curiosity you old, senile, drunk, fool...how are you disproving anything by your response besides you don't like the source of the data? Do you libtards ever look at each other just throw up for lying and dishonesty?

Because unless you can prove the data as inaccurate you might as well be lying and conversing with yourself again, Sybil. You just said nothing and are weird and proud of it again.
[Reply]
patteeu 04:15 PM 08-14-2019
Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter:
Of course you don't.... :-)

Why a Banking Heiress Spent Her Fortune on Keeping Immigrants Out

Newly unearthed documents reveal how an environmental-minded socialite became an ardent nativist whose money helped sow the seeds of the Trump anti-immigration agenda.
….

She was an heiress without a cause — an indifferent student, an unhappy young bride, a miscast socialite. Her most enduring passion was for birds.

But Cordelia Scaife May eventually found her life’s purpose: curbing what she perceived as the lethal threat of overpopulation by trying to shut America’s doors to immigrants.

She believed that the United States was “being invaded on all fronts” by foreigners, who “breed like hamsters” and exhaust natural resources. She thought that the border with Mexico should be sealed and that abortions on demand would contain the swelling masses in developing countries.

An heiress to the Mellon banking and industrial fortune with a half-billion dollars at her disposal, Mrs. May helped create what would become the modern anti-immigration movement. She bankrolled the founding and operation of the nation’s three largest restrictionist groups — the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration Studies — as well as dozens of smaller ones, including some that have promulgated white nationalist views.
….

Today, 14 years after Mrs. May’s death, her money remains the lifeblood of the movement, through her Colcom Foundation. It has poured $180 million into a network of groups that spent decades agitating for policies now pursued by President Trump: militarizing the border, capping legal immigration, prioritizing skills over family ties for entry and reducing access to public benefits for migrants, as in the new rule issued just this week by the administration.
…..

Mrs. May’s story helps explain the ascendance of once-fringe views in the debate over immigration in America, including exaggerated claims of criminality, disease or dependency on public benefits among migrants. Though their methods radically diverged, Mrs. May and the killer in the recent mass shooting in El Paso applied the same language, both warning of an immigrant “invasion,” an idea also promoted by Mr. Trump.

In many ways, the Trump presidency is the culmination of Mrs. May’s vision for strictly limiting immigration. Groups that she funded shared policy proposals with Mr. Trump’s campaign, sent key staff members to join his administration and have close ties to Stephen Miller, the architect of his immigration agenda to upend practices adopted by his Democratic and Republican predecessors.

“She would have fit in very fine in the current White House,” said George Zeidenstein, whose mainstream population-control group Mrs. May supported before she shifted to anti-immigration advocacy. “She would have found a sympathetic ear with the present occupant.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/u...gtype=Homepage
Is there something out of bounds about a restrictionist position on immigration?
[Reply]
Mr. Kotter 04:20 PM 08-14-2019
Originally Posted by Otter:
...how are you disproving anything by your response besides you don't like the source of the data? Do you libtards ever look at each other just throw up for lying and dishonesty?

Because unless you can disprove the data as inaccurate you might as well be lying and conversing with yourself again, Sybil.
Disprove a "study" from Colcom? Any substantive proposal from them is rooted in nativist and xenophobic bigotry. It would be like asking the KKK for advice on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you read the linked article.....it would be clear to most...not you, but most...

Originally Posted by patteeu:
Is there something out of bounds about a restrictionist position on immigration?
FTR, not exactly...except it is not just a restrictionist position; it is one motivated by nativist and xenophobic ideals that too often are nothing more than thinly veiled racism...

You mean OTHER than...their "research" being rooted in nativist and xenophobic bigotry? Again, making it akin to asking the KKK for advice on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
[Reply]
Otter 04:30 PM 08-14-2019
Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter:
Disprove a "study" from Colcom? Any substantive proposal from them is rooted in nativist and xenophobic bigotry. It would be like asking the KKK for advice on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you read the linked article.....it would be clear to most...not you, but most...



You mean OTHER than...their "research" being rooted in nativist and xenophobic bigotry? Again, making it akin to asking the KKK for advice on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
You've still haven't done anything to disprove the stats. "I don't like them" isn't proof of misleading or lying you senile, old fool.

Please, if you cared anything about society as you claim, you would rid yourself of the responsibility of being a teacher to children.
[Reply]
Mr. Kotter 04:42 PM 08-14-2019
Originally Posted by Otter:
You've still haven't done anything to disprove the stats. "I don't like them" isn't proof of misleading or lying you senile, old fool.

Please, if you cared anything about society as you claim, you would rid yourself of the responsibility of being a teacher to children.
What, why....so that we can embrace Ken Cuccinelli's revision of the Huddled Masses poem that captures the essence of this country's history.....and embrace the Neo Nazi and Skinhead extremist's vision of America being pushed by White Nationalists ideals that directly contradict the ideals of our founding fathers of one day creating a society in which....all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...I know, I know...you take a more "originalist" view of 1700 "men" being only white, male, land-owning, tax-paying Christians, as it had been at one time in at least 8 of the 13 colonies....

Got it....:-)
[Reply]
Page 5 of 8
< 12345 678 >
Up