There's no logical reason for Europe to let immigrants who take out more than they put in into the country: Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...vices-14-higher-money-back.html#ixzz2jojLyWTH Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
It basically comes down to the type of immigrant. Skilled labor and wealthy immigrants should be more than welcome to come. Unskilled labor is usually very limited in demand and comes with many societal costs. We're feeling some of that here in the U.S.
Recent immigrants to Britain pay more in taxes than they take out in benefits, a study on the impact of immigration said on Tuesday, and another study argued the influx of skilled immigrants was correlated to an increase in productivity. According to a wide-ranging study based on data from the Office for National Statistics' Labour Force Survey, immigrants arriving from euro-area countries between 2001 and 2011 paid 34 percent more in tax than they received in benefits, while those from other countries paid in about two percent more than they took out. All immigrants were 45 percent less likely to claim from the state than "native", British-born citizens, the report showed. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/05/uk-britain-migrants-idUKBRE9A40MD20131105
I'd emphasise that the flaw lies with th systemic failure on the part of the europeans: all immigrants are merely acting rationally.
Do those limits start with a closed border or are they imaginary limits with full welfare expansion available to all like most on the Left are calling for?
As far as I understand it, non-citizens aren't allowed federal benefits. If a city or state wants to use their own funds for that sort of thing, that's up to them. The only exception to this is when non-citizens give birth to citizens here. That's obviously a loophole that needs to be corrected by revising the "jus soli" part of the Constitution. This would require an Amendment to fix though.
That's the problem. They want this unlimited immigration from 3rd world countries and then whine about the increased poverty.
Which is why the old way was fine. You come here. Maybe you struggle a bit but not as much as back home and your kids do better, and their kids do better, and then you get a generation of elitist a leftists saying "let them eat cake" but the practicalities dictate that you have to close the border and opportunity all in the name of "compassion".
Yes they are. Get free health care too and their kids get full on welfare that gives them a home, food stamps, etc... Those that don't are fine. They pay taxes (employer loses deductions), and don't drain the system. But many do and the government is starting more dependency outreach in an attemp to get more on welfare in order to make them democrats. OFA and La Raza get money to do this. They get money now, to find people living in the United States and enroll them in welfare programs. Crazy right? That is Obama for you. Federal mandate and local governments cannot enforce immigration law. Ask Eric holder. Big fix. Why not get rid of the welfare state and go back to the opportunity nation?
http://www.nilc.org/overview-immeligfedprograms.html According to this site, there are several restrictions involved for non-citizens. Generally speaking, the only immigrant non-citizens that receive immediate benefits are categorized as trafficking victims. Outside of that group, non-citizens have to have lived here for at least 5 years. While I don't like the thought of people coming here to suck up federal benefits, having to wait 5 years beforehand seems reasonable enough -- if they got here legally or aren't overstaying a visa. I would agree that illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed benefits though. Granted, if you really want to fix the problem of illegal immigration, you have to go after the employers of illegals. The biggest offenders are companies like Purdue and Tyson. Since they have deep pockets, however, they tend to have several legislators on their side. As far as the voting stuff goes, you have to be a citizen to vote in federal elections. There's been a lot of talk about voter fraud but very little evidence of it. The truth of the matter is that we have more legitimate worries that the systems responsible for counting votes are compromised. Companies like Diebold don't have a very good track record for integrity or impartiality. I'm not a fan of that ruling either. It depends on what you mean by opportunity. There was plenty of opportunity in the 1800s, but it was mostly confined to wealthy white males. Women didn't see a lot of economic opportunity until after WW2. Black people haven't been allowed much opportunity until integration. So opportunity has been a relatively elitist principle even after the welfare state was first put into play. It was even more elitist before it. The better public infrastructures and civil rights are, the more economic mobility you can have throughout society. This is shown time and time again by many of our peers. So, ending the welfare state isn't the solution. It could surely use some reforms, however.
Why every time you talk about economic freedom the left has to go through the obligatory history of world oppression? We are talking about immigrant opportunity. You know the millions who dared high seas to be oppressed by white elitist males. Their kids get it for them come day 1. Medical care at the ER and since they are illegal they don't get fined by obamacare. Problem not solved.
Again, most of the illegal immigrant problem is solved by holding their employers accountable. They wouldn't show up illegally if no one employed them. Granted, we need a certain amount of cheap labor for things like agriculture, which requires some visa reform to deal with.
That may solve some of the illegal immigration problem. Not the immigration problem. If we get rid of the welfare state, we can solve immigration and keep the US open as a land of opportunity and help more people rise out of poverty. Do you have a problem with immigrants coming here to work? I don't. Just to come here to be dependent. Migrant worker program, (anchor kid problem still exists), or we can just get rid of the welfare state and not have to do these things.
You are aware that the countries that lack welfare programs tend to have far more serious crime problems than us, right?
