CIS: Welfare Use High for Both Legal and Illegal Immigrants

 49% for Legal Households, 62% for Illegals
Here is the complete Center for Immigration Studies press release:

WASHINGTON, DC (September 10, 2015) — Low levels of education — not legal status — are the main reason immigrant welfare use is high, according to a new report by the Center for Immigration Studies. The report estimates welfare use separately for legal and illegal immigrant households based on Census Bureau data, and is a companion to the Center’s study released last week examining all immigrant households. The new analysis shows that legal immigrant households make extensive use of most welfare programs, while illegal immigrant households primarily benefit from food programs and Medicaid through U.S.-born children.

“Welfare use by illegal immigrant households is certainly a concern, but the bigger issue is welfare use by legal immigrants,” said Steven Camarota, the Center’s Director of Research and author of the report. “Three-fourths of immigrant households using welfare are headed by legal immigrants. Legal immigration is supposed to benefit the country, yet so many legal immigrants are not able to support themselves or their children. This raises important questions about the selection criteria used for legal immigration.”

camarota-welfare-illegals-t1

View the entire report at: http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households

Among the findings:

~An estimated 49 percent of households headed by legal immigrants used one or more welfare programs in 2012, compared to 30 percent of households headed by natives.

~Households headed by legal immigrants have higher use rates than native households overall and for cash programs (14 percent vs. 10 percent), food programs (36 percent vs. 22 percent), and Medicaid (39 percent vs. 23 percent). Use of housing programs is similar.

~Legal immigrant households account for three-quarters of all immigrant households accessing one or more welfare programs.

~Of legal immigrant households with children, 72 percent access one or more welfare programs, compared to 52 percent of native households.

~Of households headed by immigrants in the country illegally, we estimate that 62 percent used one or more welfare programs in 2012, compared to 30 percent of native households.

~Households headed by immigrants illegally in the country have higher use rates than native households overall and for food programs (57 percent vs. 22 percent) and Medicaid (51 percent vs. 23 percent). Use of cash programs by illegal immigrants is lower than use by natives (5 percent vs. 10 percent), as is use of housing programs (4 percent vs. 6 percent).

~Of illegal immigrant households with children, 87 percent access one or more welfare programs, compared to 52 percent of native households.

~There is a worker present in 85 percent of legal immigrant-headed households and 95 percent of illegal immigrant-headed households. But while most immigrant households have a worker, many are less-educated, earn low wages, and are thus eligible for welfare.

~Education level plays a larger role in explaining welfare use than legal status. The most extensive use of welfare is by less-educated immigrants who are in the country legally. Of households headed by legal immigrants without a high school diploma, 75 percent use one or more welfare programs, as do 64 percent of households headed by legal immigrants with only a high school education.

~The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants have modest levels of education; therefore, the high use of welfare associated with less-educated legal immigrants indicates that legalization would likely increase welfare costs, particularly for cash and housing programs.

~Restrictions on new legal immigrants’ access to welfare have not prevented them from accessing programs at high rates because restrictions often apply to only a modest share of immigrants at any one time. Some programs are not restricted, there are numerous exceptions and exemptions, and some provisions are entirely unenforced. Equally important, immigrants, including those illegally in the country, can receive welfare on behalf of their U.S.-born children.

# # #

Be sure to see CIS’s previous announcement about how immigrants of all kinds use welfare at a higher rate than native born Americans.

Refugees!

For readers who are researching the Refugee Resettlement Program, go here for annual reports to Congress which contain information about welfare use by refugees.
In the most recent year (2013) available, note that on page 101, refugees are using public assistance at a much higher rate than other LEGAL immigrants shown in the table above.  Remember it is the contractor’s job to get their ‘clients’ (refugees) signed up for “services.”  Refugees thus benefit to a greater degree than other legal immigrants partly because you pay a supposed non-profit to guide them through the process of signing them up for their welfare benefits.

21% of refugees are using SSI

56% are using Medicaid

74% are getting food stamps (SNAP)

23% are in public housing or subsidized housing

This post is filed in our categories ‘where to find information‘ and ‘refugee statistics.’
Oops!  Forgot to mention that the whole premise of the Refugee Act of 1980 (Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden) was that refugees were to be self-sufficient very quickly, they were not meant to be a burden on the taxpayer—so much for that promise!

Steps a refugee takes to get to America (can take a couple of years)

This is a handy flow chart I came across some time ago.  It is published by the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (in the Dept. of Health and Human Services).
 
Journey to Resettlement in the United States
 
Do you see where it says “war” in step 1?   A legitimate refugee still must prove that he or she is being persecuted or has a legitimate fear of persecution even if running from a war zone. One cannot simply be fearful of war, or in the case of the Syrians, a civil war, persecution must still be proven (for such things as race, religion, political views and so forth).  Many of the so-called ‘refugees’ arriving in Europe are really economic migrants, not legitimate refugees.
And, do you see Step 2? Refugees are required to file for asylum protection in the first safe country they get to.  It is not supposed to be a shopping spree opportunity as is happening in Europe now as migrants move from country to country looking for the best welfare deals.
This whole ‘journey’, if done carefully, takes a couple of years.
Note the significant role the UN High Commissioner for Refugees plays in the processing of US-bound refugees.

UNHCR data confirms it: 75% of the so-called refugees arriving in Europe are MEN

Invasion of Europe news….

***Update*** November 17: this was a screenshot of the UNHCR percentages of men as of this date.  One of our lurkers has suggested we lied.  The percentage has fluctuated over time.

graph 75% men

We mentioned recently that it appears from some photos that the invaders of Europe are mostly fighting age young men.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees does not tell us their ages, but does tell us that 75% are men. (Germans hide your daughters!)
Only 51% are Syrians, the rest are from all over the Middle East and Africa.
So, did the men abandon their women and children back home (in an unsafe country)?  What sort of men are these?
See the numbers from the horse’s mouth, here.  Hat tip: Mark
For our archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ going back several years, click here.
 

97% of Syrian refugees admitted to US in 2015 are Muslims

We have been reporting from time to time the number of Syrian refugees admitted to the US.  You know that the resettlement contractors and the Senate Jihad Caucus are looking for the US to resettle 65,000 before Obama leaves office.

ted-cruz
Ted Cruz fans! It is time to ask your man where he stands on refugees. Texas is the number one resettlement state in the Nation and is receiving the most Syrian Muslims at this time. Where is he? ***Update*** Cruz makes his position very clear, here on September 24th: https://refugeeresettlementwatch.org/2015/09/24/senator-ted-cruz-syrian-refugee-flow-a-national-security-threat/

Using US State Department figures going back to January 1, 2012 we see that 1,487 Syrians have been admitted as of September 1 (a few days ago) and the vast majority (95%) are Muslims—Sunni Muslims.  However, if one only looks at the calendar year 2015, the percentage of Muslims jumps to 97%!  That is because the UN is telling us which refugees to take!
By the way there are 40-some Christians in that number and 1 Yazidi (and a few other religions, or no religion).

The 1,487 have been distributed to 36 states.

The top ten states receiving mostly Sunni Muslim Syrians since 1/1/2012 are as follows (as of today):

Texas (173)

California (162)

Michigan (146)

Illinois (120)

Arizona (107)

Florida (92)

Pennsylvania (76)

New Jersey (63)

Massachusetts (58)

Kentucky (55)

I’ll bet that one criteria used to determine where they have been sent is the number of mosques in the state.
Don’t forget that back in February the FBI testified before the House Homeland Security Committee that they could not adequately screen the Syrians for security.
For those readers just joining us today—PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION!
Watch for it!  This month Obama will be announcing how many Syrians he wants admitted to the US in 2016!  I’ll be watching what those Senators running for the Republican nomination for President will say as their states will be getting the bulk of the Syrians. Ted Cruz (TX), Rand Paul (KY), Chris Christie (NJ) and Marco Rubio (FL)—where are you?

States with large number of mosques correlates with top refugee resettlement states

A reader, Dick, sent us this map (below) of the US which shows the number of mosques located in each state.   There is a maybe not-so-surprising correlation to the top states receiving refugees.
By the way, as I noted in my little book, mosque construction is a way to stake-out territory often in advance of the arrival of any large population of worshipers of Allah.  The mosque actually serves as the magnet for further migration to that location (the Hijra).  Mohammed instructed his followers to migrate, to spread Islam, not just from country to country, but also from town to town and neighborhood to neighborhood.
Mosques in America
 
Here are the Top Five States (for 2014) (in descending order) for refugee resettlement and in parenthesis is its position on the Mosque map.  Coincidence?

Texas (#3 in number of mosques)

California (#1)

New York (#2)

Michigan (#6)

Florida (#5)

Ohio surprise!
Find out how many refugees your state has received this fiscal year (as of July 31st), here.  Wow!  It looks like OHIO has moved into the #6 spot—gee! I wonder why?  Do they really think they will get all of those new registered voters signed up in time for the 2016 election?  Ohio is pretty high up on the mosque map too!
Remember readers that the numbers depicted on this map only represent refugees brought to your state by the resettlement contractors.  The numbers do not include those moving in to your state as ‘secondary migrants’ (refugees resettled elsewhere who decide to move to your state).  They do not include asylum seekers or successful asylum seekers (called asylees) or the ‘unaccompanied alien children.’
For our Virginia readers, I see the number of mosques (map above) for the state is not clear.  The number is 88.