Hoooboy, what a pile of dreck.
This is the kind of fake graphics that give a bad name to statistics.
First off, this from the source that the Washington Examiner quoted (
https://www.cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs )
- While most new legal immigrants (green card holders) are barred from most welfare programs, as are illegal immigrants and temporary visitors, these provisions have only a modest impact on non-citizen household use rates because: 1) most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify; 2) the bar does not apply to all programs, nor does it always apply to non-citizen children; 3) some states provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; and, most importantly, 4) non-citizens (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship and full welfare eligibility at birth.
The public assistance you are whining about is entirely and utterly legal. The recipients met all requirements, beginning with -- they have low income.
Duh, it's tough moving to the US. They are making less than most and public assistance programs are there to help those people.
Second, the underlying premise is that immigration is why these people are on assistance. As stated in the Examiner's article, all of the immigrant households contain at least one person who are working. Would employers not need these workers if they weren't here? If immigrants weren't here, would US citizens be willing to work for such low wages? (uhh, no) Why not make the premise that the minimum wage is too low?
Third, there isn't any way to check the source's use of SIPP's data. I looked through both the Examiner's article and the cis article and could not find any description of how they extracted and used their data.
Conclusion: more right wing racist posturing is on display here. The problem is low wages, not immigration policies.
