Immigrants Take More Than They Contribute

[gatomontes99]

Center for Immigrant Studies

Quote

The 2022 SIPP indicates that 54 percent of households headed by immigrants — naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal immigrants — used one or more major welfare program. This compares to 39 percent for U.S.-born households.

So we can dispel of that lie the left loves to tell us. Immigrants DO NOT contribute more than they take. 

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Center for Immigrant Studies

So we can dispel of that lie the left loves to tell us. Immigrants DO NOT contribute more than they take. 

There's no costing provided in that article. 

 

How much tax is paid, what is the dollar value of the benefits...

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

There's no costing provided in that article. 

 

How much tax is paid, what is the dollar value of the benefits...

And working temporary immigrants (asylum claimants) pay into SS & Medicare but are not allowed to collect the benefits.

Quote

No, working temporary immigrants who are asylum claimants do not typically qualify to collect Social Security and Medicare benefits, even though they and their employers pay taxes into the system. 

Here is a breakdown of how the system works:

• Asylum seekers pay taxes: While their asylum claim is pending, individuals who have received a work permit (Employment Authorization Document) are required to pay federal, state, and local taxes, including Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. The Social Security Administration (SSA) reports that millions of dollars are contributed each year by unauthorized workers.
• Benefits are generally withheld: Federal public assistance programs like Social Security and Medicare are generally restricted to U.S. citizens and specific groups of qualified immigrants. Unauthorized immigrants and most asylum seekers are not in one of the qualified immigrant categories, making them ineligible to collect benefits.
• Asylees and benefits: An asylum seeker is a person who has applied for asylum but has not yet received a decision. An asylee is a person who has been granted asylum. Asylees are eligible for certain benefits after their status is granted, but recent legislation has restricted their Medicare eligibility. In July 2025, many lawfully present immigrants, including asylees, were eliminated from Medicare eligibility.
• Benefits for asylees who adjust status: If a person with asylum status works for at least 10 years (or 40 qualifying work credits) and then adjusts their status to become a lawful permanent resident (green card holder), they may become eligible to collect Social Security and Medicare benefits. However, recent changes to Medicare eligibility may affect their ability to collect.
• Impact on Social Security funds: Because these temporary workers contribute billions of dollars in taxes without being able to collect benefits, their participation helps improve the financial solvency of the Social Security program

 

[Hodad]

Wow, this is a pretty shoddy report, but the bigger problem is OP trying to draw from it a conclusion that does not logically follow. 

That, and eschewing the extensive academic literature on the subject in favor of slurping down a cocktail of confirmation bias and virulent racism. 

"The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an American anti-immigration^{[3][4][5][6][7]} think tank. It favors far lower immigration numbers and produces analyses to further those views. The CIS was founded by historian Otis L. Graham alongside eugenicist and white nationalist John Tanton in 1985 as a spin-off of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). It is one of a number of anti-immigration organizations founded by Tanton, along with FAIR and NumbersUSA. CIS has been involved in the creation of Project 2025."

[gatomontes99]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Wow, this is a pretty shoddy report, but the bigger problem is OP trying to draw from it a conclusion that does not logically follow. 

That, and eschewing the extensive academic literature on the subject in favor of slurping down a cocktail of confirmation bias and virulent racism. 

"The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an American anti-immigration^{[3][4][5][6][7]} think tank. It favors far lower immigration numbers and produces analyses to further those views. The CIS was founded by historian Otis L. Graham alongside eugenicist and white nationalist John Tanton in 1985 as a spin-off of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). It is one of a number of anti-immigration organizations founded by Tanton, along with FAIR and NumbersUSA. CIS has been involved in the creation of Project 2025."

Fine. Show me the math where one group that takes benefits (designed for the poor) at a rate of 54% is contributing more than they take. These programs are designed to distribute to tax brackets that pay little to no taxes. 

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Fine. Show me the math where one group that takes benefits (designed for the poor) at a rate of 54% is contributing more than they take.  

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20250122/117827/HHRG-119-JU01-20250122-SD003.pdf

 

There you go.

 

According to the study, posted on the Congressional website they pay "more than their share" and pay more in taxes than the top 1%.

 

I expect you will now modify your position.

 

You are welcome.

[Hodad]

21 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Fine. Show me the math where one group that takes benefits (designed for the poor) at a rate of 54% is contributing more than they take. These programs are designed to distribute to tax brackets that pay little to no taxes. 

First, and most obviously, (setting aside quality and motive) this report attempts to show participation rates in any program, not dollar amounts. Nor does it track contributions. So even if you stipulate that it's quality data, you're MILES away from being able to draw any conclusions about giving more or less than they benefit. Not even in the same logical ballpark.

Second, while there's a long list of factors that should be considered in your thinking--but are not-- the big things like the state/federal stacking are the most obvious. Undocumented (and most non-citizens) are not even eligible for federal programs, but are eligible for some state programs, depending on the state. So, for example, in a state with a school lunch program a child may be fed (citizen or non-citizen child of citizen or non-citizen parents), and at that point the family counts as participating in welfare programs. 

The citizen head-of-household family is potentially (likely) eligible for benefits all the way up the federal stack. So that family gets school lunches, SNAP, Medicaid etc. 

The non-citizen head-of-household family may only be eligible for school lunch, or some other smaller state programs, but not the federal programs.

Ceteris paribus, the citizen-led household is receiving MUCH more financial assistance than the non-citizen-led household. Yet they show up equally in a measure of families who benefit from at least one welfare program. And, again, this doesn't even try to account for what these two twin families pay into our systems. BTW, even this report acknowledges that workforce participation is significantly higher in households led by non-citizens. So in addition to not being eligible for federal benefits, the non-citizens are more likely to work. There's more, but that's plenty to illustrate your poor thinking on the subject.

 

[gatomontes99]

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20250122/117827/HHRG-119-JU01-20250122-SD003.pdf

 

There you go.

 

According to the study, posted on the Congressional website they pay "more than their share" and pay more in taxes than the top 1%.

 

I expect you will now modify your position.

 

You are welcome.

And that is a lie:

Newsweek: The issue is a $150.7 billion one, shared between federal and state governments, and that's just one year.

Your study says they bring in less than $100B in taxes. Nice try though.

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

First, and most obviously, (setting aside quality and motive) this report attempts to show participation rates in any program, not dollar amounts.

And? The lie the left tells us is that they are a net benefit and that they take less than citizens. But that cant be possible if they accept benefits at a much much higher rate. 

 

9 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Nor does it track contributions

It is a natural and accurate assumption that if they are getting benefits, they likely are untaxed. 

10 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Undocumented (and most non-citizens) are not even eligible for federal programs,

Then why are they getting them?

HHS: Illegals Convicted of Sex Crimes, Attempted Murder Receive Over $230K in Taxpayer-Funded Healthcare Benefits

NyPost: A 1996 law prevented migrants from getting welfare — it’s been ignored for 30 years

Townhall: Scott Jennings Takes a Victory Lap on Illegal Immigrants Receiving Medicaid

17 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Ceteris paribus, the citizen-led household is receiving MUCH more financial assistance than the non-citizen-led household.

My article, with actual data disproves your speculation. 

[Hodad]

41 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

And that is a lie:

Newsweek: The issue is a $150.7 billion one, shared between federal and state governments, and that's just one year.

Your study says they bring in less than $100B in taxes. Nice try though.

And? The lie the left tells us is that they are a net benefit and that they take less than citizens. But that cant be possible if they accept benefits at a much much higher rate. 

 

It is a natural and accurate assumption that if they are getting benefits, they likely are untaxed. 

Then why are they getting them?

HHS: Illegals Convicted of Sex Crimes, Attempted Murder Receive Over $230K in Taxpayer-Funded Healthcare Benefits

NyPost: A 1996 law prevented migrants from getting welfare — it’s been ignored for 30 years

Townhall: Scott Jennings Takes a Victory Lap on Illegal Immigrants Receiving Medicaid

My article, with actual data disproves your speculation. 

I'm going to set aside your specious arguments and shitty links, because you're not yet grasping the basic logic problem. I explained very clearly how participation rates are vastly different than consumption rates, and more different still than net consumption rates. This should be very obvious with even the tiniest bit of critical thinking, but you get one more remedial example.

Participation rate is the breadth of use, not the depth. 

Imagine you work at a college and run an athletic department dining program. Looking at the data, 50% of male athletes come to the cafeteria at least once a week. 60% of the female athletes. Would it be reasonable to conclude that you are spending more to feed the female athletes than the male athletes?

Of course not. That would be stupid in several ways. Participation is not the same as consumption. Yet that's the logical leap you are trying to make from this report--and are trying to double down on. Stop doing it. You just look foolish. Take in the new information and move on.

 

[paxamericana]

12 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Center for Immigrant Studies

So we can dispel of that lie the left loves to tell us. Immigrants DO NOT contribute more than they take. 

@blackbird, defend your immigrants.

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

I'm going to set aside your specious arguments and shitty links, because you're not yet grasping the basic logic problem. I explained very clearly how participation rates are vastly different than consumption rates, and more different still than net consumption rates. This should be very obvious with even the tiniest bit of critical thinking, but you get one more remedial example.

Participation rate is the breadth of use, not the depth. 

Imagine you work at a college and run an athletic department dining program. Looking at the data, 50% of male athletes come to the cafeteria at least once a week. 60% of the female athletes. Would it be reasonable to conclude that you are spending more to feed the female athletes than the male athletes?

Of course not. That would be stupid in several ways. Participation is not the same as consumption. Yet that's the logical leap you are trying to make from this report--and are trying to double down on. Stop doing it. You just look foolish. Take in the new information and move on.

 

The data above was both participation and consumption. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

And that is a lie:

Newsweek: The issue is a $150.7 billion one, shared between federal and state governments, and that's just one year.

Your study says they bring in less than $100B in taxes. Nice try though.

 

Discrepancy not lie.

[User]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

According to the study, posted on the Congressional website they pay "more than their share" and pay more in taxes than the top 1%.

Wow. You either have difficulty with reading comprehension here or were really trying to skew this to make a dishonest point.

What you linked to makes the claim that they pay a higher percentage of pay, not more in taxes, and it was only in 40 states.

So tell us, how do you miss restating these details so horribly like you did? 

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

The data above was both participation and consumption. 

No, it isn't.

That's why you asked this nonsensical question rather than one involving costs vs contributions.  
"Show me the math where one group that takes benefits (designed for the poor) at a rate of 54% is contributing more than they take."

There are tons of academic investigations of the actual question (and they consistently tell the same net-positive story) but if you want one that's right-wing biased, look at the CATO institute. 

"With some variation and exceptions, the net fiscal impact of immigrants is more positive than it is for native‐born Americans and positive overall for the federal and state/local governments."

 

I'm no fan of CATO, but they are interested in policy investigation rather than just being a propaganda generator for farking white nationalist talking points. 

[gatomontes99]

20 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, it isn't.

That's why you asked this nonsensical question rather than one involving costs vs contributions.  
"Show me the math where one group that takes benefits (designed for the poor) at a rate of 54% is contributing more than they take."

There are tons of academic investigations of the actual question (and they consistently tell the same net-positive story) but if you want one that's right-wing biased, look at the CATO institute. 

"With some variation and exceptions, the net fiscal impact of immigrants is more positive than it is for native‐born Americans and positive overall for the federal and state/local governments."

 

I'm no fan of CATO, but they are interested in policy investigation rather than just being a propaganda generator for farking white nationalist talking points. 

Michael posted that they bring in x and I replied with proof they take more than x. The data is above. 

[bush_cheney2004]

The impact of legal vs. illegal immigrants is not the same.   There are about 47 million immigrants in the USA, depending on who is doing the counting.   The majority are legal and net contributors to the country, just like immigrants of the past.  Many are in such a position because they left their nation of origin in a positive position already, being more likely to succeed in the "land of opportunity".

But many undocumented (illegal aliens) present a different set of challenges and associated civil and criminal activities, starting/stemming from just being in the country without immigration status or work authorization.   This leads to a host of negative outcomes like human trafficking, identity theft, unauthorized employment, lower wages, benefits fraud, unlicensed/uninsured motor vehicle driving (including commercial truck drivers), sex trafficking, smuggling of contraband, felony border re-entry, etc.

Since many states do not collect or expressly prohibit the collection of immigration status for detentions and arrests, it is difficult to know exactly what the numbers are.  Fear of deportation also prevents the reporting of criminal activity by perps and victims alike.

 

[Michael Hardner]

23 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

  The majority are legal and net contributors to the country, just like immigrants of the past.   

Thanks. @gatomontes99 your assertion about immigrants, generally categorized, in the OP is dispelled.

[gatomontes99]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Thanks. @gatomontes99 your assertion about immigrants, generally categorized, in the OP is dispelled.

So my link supported data is dispelled because a random, anonymous person on a forum said so? 

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

So my link supported data is dispelled because a random, anonymous person on a forum said so? 

It's Bush_Cheney !

You made a mistake when you lumped illegal immigrants in, admit that.

[paxamericana]

2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

So my link supported data is dispelled because a random, anonymous person on a forum said so? 

Michael is baiting you.

[gatomontes99]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

It's Bush_Cheney !

You made a mistake when you lumped illegal immigrants in, admit that.

I said, from the very beginning, immigrants. You and Hodad said illegal immigrants. 

[Nationalist]

This is cute. Libbies warping reality again.

As time passes...the truth of matters always comes to light. For instance, yesterday Bill Gates finally came clean on the dreaded climate change chickenshit.

Libbies...if you have to lie in order to make an argument, perhaps you should not make that argument?

 

[User]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's Bush_Cheney !

You made a mistake when you lumped illegal immigrants in, admit that.

Stop hiding from me and admit your mistake. 

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Michael posted that they bring in x and I replied with proof they take more than x. The data is above. 

A. Even if true, it would not negate the the invalid syllogism you tried to sell us to open the thread.

B. Unlike your first "report" speaking to immigration in totality, the Newsweek link is a second hand reference to a report that is speaking solely of illegal immigration. (There's that logic gap again.) A report series that was widely criticized when the first one dropped during Trump's first term. 

C. Instead of going for real academic research, you went right back to the same fetid swamp of virulent racism.

"FAIR was founded in 1979 by Michigan surgeon and white nationalist John Tanton.^[13][14][15] Other co-founders include Otis Graham and former Gulf Oil chief executive officer Sydney Swensrud. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C."

 

^^Same guys. Same mission. Once is an accident. Twice is telling us a lot about yourself by the company you keep. 

Again, get a real analysis if you want to explore the issue, rather than propaganda paid for by a mission-driven advocacy group. Hate shouldn't be a business, but in the Trump era that business is booming. 

[CrakHoBarbie]

21 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Center for Immigrant Studies

So we can dispel of that lie the left loves to tell us. Immigrants DO NOT contribute more than they take. 

The Cato institute found the opposite.

So, I guess we can dispel of the lie the right loves to tell us?

 

https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/immigrant-native-consumption-means-tested-welfare-entitlement-benefits-2022#