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

Why the hell not?

 

also, when politicians refuse to comply with the feds, talking cali here, those politicians should be arrested by federal agents and tried for treason. do that a few times , then arrest any judges that plays politics with there postion when those politicians file lawsuits looking for injunctions against the feds

 

I don’t see separation between legal and illegal immigrants.
How did you come up with $115B?

 

I linked the articles.

 

Deemed discriminatory.

 

<Mod Edit>

Illegals Immigrants are eligible for a handful of benefits that are deemed necessary to protect life or guarantee safety in dire situations, such as emergency Medicaid, access to treatment in hospital emergency rooms, or access to healthcare and nutrition programs under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

 

Not the thread topic.
The topic is welfare recipients of non citizens.
Anchor babies are citizens. So what, it's legal.

 

Do you read what you reply to?

 

It is simply false to claim illegal aliens don't get public assistance. While one would reasonably expect some of them may be reluctant to avail themselves of the benefits they could obtain out of fear they'd be identified and deported, there's the 'grapevine' and they learn soon enough they can't be discriminated against due to nationality, and that there are local public assistance programs specifically aimed at non-citizens. Additionally one should realize public assistance is "need based" and that illegal aliens certainly have the need, they are employed illegally with very low wages, so they would appreciate both the need and their eligibility. Since there are actually tens of millions of these illegal aliens working illegally for less than minimum wage and most have been in the US for years it makes sense to realize they do draw benefits with fraudulent claims and forged documents. People living for years in the US have children who are legally eligible for public assistance when their parents are working for less than minimum wage and since their parents' jobs are illegal, there's no record of that income either. In fact illegal aliens do receive public assistance, no doubt they could receive more, and I'm sure some don't out of fear they'd be deported, but lets not pretend tens of millions of illegal aliens working the lowest paid jobs are not a strain on the public purse.

 

So, do you want someone reliable like La Raza to do a count or what?

 

Sure. You accept information from blatantly biased sources. Turnaround is fair.

 

"La Raza" (formally "National Council of La Raza") founded in 1968, last year changed its name to "UnidosUS". Evidently they realized "La Raza" (which literally means "the race") has unacceptable racist overtones. This is an advocacy organization primarily concerned with Mexicans in the US (in Mexico the expression "la raza" refers to people from that country). In the US the organization has appropriately become more inclusive to embrace all Hispanics (which I think they prefer to call "latinos"). La Raza's advocacy covers a broad range lobbying for and providing legal services fighting evictions, supporting immigration and public assistance for latinos regardless of citizenship or lawful presence.

 

How in the hell is it discriminatory if it is something that is required from EVERYONE? Surely it can only be deemed discriminatory if it isn't required, but at the discretion of the government officer it can be asked for, raising suspicions about racial profiling. I understand the racial profiling factor when it comes to police asking random members of the public for their papers, but not when it comes to people applying for government welfare. I swear, the US is a JOKE COUNTRY is some aspects!

 

Well in fact it is deemed discriminatory to ask a public assistance applicant for evidence of lawful presence. Some benefits require evidence of residence, but the affirmation an applicant is or has been a resident for the requisite time is sufficient, proof is not required (nonetheless it is a fraud to falsely assert eligibility).

 

How can it be discriminatory if you ask everyone for the same proof?

 

Heh...because not everyone can provide it?

Discrimination!

 

Good discrimination. There's a range of discrimination -- not a single entity.

 

I know "whataboutism" is a fad term, but it doesn't apply.

You or someone else made non-specific comments about the source of the poll without any mentioned rationale.

I put a link on the post, so you can go there and see for yourself.

 

As usual, when you are demonstrably proven wrong, you try to change the subject.

 

Proof of residency can be shown with a utility bill, usually this is how applicants for public assistance provide evidence of domicile.

 

Applicants for public assistance go to a State or municipal agency and submit a detailed legal sheet sized form where they indicate in writing their name, age, gender, social security number, employer and income, the same information for each individual at that address and their relationships (kinship). The form is cursorily reviewed to confirm pertinent information and the applicant is scheduled for an interview about a week later, told to bring proof of domicile (a utility bill), of dependents in the household (school records), of income (a pay stub)...

When the applicant is interviewed a caseworker confirms and verifies the information provided, the applicant signs the application and it is submitted for a determination of eligibility. Depending on what benefits an applicant is entitled to from federal State or municipal programs, additional documentation may be required. For example the applicant may have provided an address used by another applicant receiving benefits there and then this has to be accounted for in the household's income, the caseworker may need to see a lease to verify a rental amount or find out if unrelated members of the household contribute to the rent.

Typically the caseworker is employed by the State or municipality, their agency has lower standards than the federal programs, but eligibility for State and municipal benefits is often deemed sufficient to apply for federal benefits (though these may require additional documentation). For example states and municipal programs have an "energy allowance" (for electricity) and money for heating (gas) which are provided based on utility bills which is proof of residence, but the federal government provides a "shelter allowance" (for housing costs) which requires a lease (or evidence of mortgage).

When I worked as an ALJ for the New York State Department of Social Services I held hearings and issued decisions that usually involved the different agencies' rejection of an application for some particular benefit (they're supposed to be called "entitlements") when the applicant was eligible for funds for it from the State or municipal agencies, but not from the federal program (or viceversa). In the immense majority of the cases the agencies failed to provide a complete record and would lose. Many applicants were more knowledgeable of the regulations and had better documentation than the agencies. It was not unusual for the applicant to require an interpreter, but I was absolutely forbidden to ask about nationality, immigration status or citizenship.