You should read your own link. They clearly show most of the "welfare" is in food assistance and medicaid. This makes sense, since most immigrants don't have high incomes. But it also lumps discounted food lunches as "welfare," which is not paying anyone not to work.
Further, and more importantly, it included the citizen children of immigrants, who by definition aren't immigrants. All of these "studies" use this neat trick to try and paint immigrants as coming here and getting a bunch of stuff, but even this clearly anti-immigrant study shows that is nonsense.
And how about these children that we are giving reduced rate lunches too? Are they raised to live off the dole? No, they tend to do better in nearly all respects than the children of native born families in nearly all respects. Sounds like a pretty solid investment to me. Once again, the anti-immigration argument is a solution in search of a problem.
I've changed the wording around but in this thread I've repeatedly referred to an old joke that you apparently don't get so I'll tell the joke here and then explain it, perhaps that will help:
The joke is that a guy says that he is buying hammers for $12 each and selling them for $10 each. A friend points out that he is losing money on each hammer and the guy says "Yeah, but I'm making it up on volume."
The joke is that if you are losing money on each unit, you can't make that up on volume because you lose money on each unit so when you add units you lose MORE money.
In this post of yours you have finally admitted a key issue:
This makes sense, since most immigrants don't have high incomes.
Right, do you see the problem yet?
The US Social Welfare system is an economic catastrophe. It is easy to blame the politicians but we the people bear the ultimate responsibility. From 1968-1988 there were 6 Presidential Elections and we elected 5 "low tax" Republican Presidents:
- 1968 Republican Nixon over Democrat Humphrey
- 1972 Republican Nixon over Democrat McGovern
- 1976 Democrat Carter over Republican Ford
- 1980 Republican Reagan over Democrat Carter
- 1984 Republican Reagan over Democrat Mondale
- 1988 Republican Bush I over Democrat Dukakis
So that makes it look like "we the people" supported small government except that the people didn't. Despite electing "low tax" Republican Presidents in five out of six elections, the very same electorate packed the Congress with big spending Democrats the entire time. The HoR was controlled by Democrats that entire time and the Senate was controlled by Democrats for all but a few years.
So, "we the people" elected Democrats to Congress for the benefits and Republicans to the White House so that we wouldn't have to pay for those benefits and established a ridiculous and unsustainable system where we pay for a lot less government than we actually get. This system continues today. It was only briefly interrupted in the 1990's.
Social Security is an absolute catastrophe. I don't think I need to provide a link for that. The system is hemorrhaging money, the "trust fund" is more myth than fact, and Congress cannot enact a viable solution because Democrats would never agree to the necessary benefit cuts and Republicans would never agree to the tax increases.
Social Security loses money.
Medicaid loses money.
Food assistance is obviously a government benefit with a cost so it loses money as well.
Our Social Welfare system is obviously a government benefit with a cost so it loses money as well.
Your solution, much like the hammer seller in the joke above is to "make it up on volume" but importing ever more low-income people. Much like the hammer seller, YOU CANNOT MAKE IT UP ON VOLUME. No matter how many $12 hammers he sells for $10, he will continue to lose money. Similarly, no matter how many low-income immigrants you roll out the Red Carpet for, you will continue to lose money.
In
@betarhoalphadelta 's example, he gets reduced-cost lawncare because illegal immigrants do the work cheaper than what it would otherwise cost him. What this example misses is that there are externalities. Based on the US Census data, there is a 73% chance that Beta's Mexican or Central American lawn guy is collecting welfare from the US Government. Beta gets cheap lawn care much like the Koch Brothers get cheap labor for their factories but the rest of us all pay for it. The government spends money on benefits for these cheap laborers. You and I pay for those expenditures because every $1 that the US Government spends in one area by definition results in one of four things:
- A reduction in spending elsewhere (ie, we lose some other benefit), or
- An increase in taxes (ie, we pay more), or
- An increase in the Debt (ie, we owe more, or
- Some combination of the above.
This isn't rocket science. We are all subsidizing Beta's lawncare. We are all subsidizing the Koch Brothers' factories. You cannot make this up on volume.
