We are a generous country....
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/c...erican-families-5692-vs.-4431/article/2590744
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/c...erican-families-5692-vs.-4431/article/2590744
They shouldn't be getting anything at all.This does not look like an apples to apples comparison...
are you surprised?This does not look like an apples to apples comparison...
Not in the least. Here's a thorough debunking of Richwine's report from, of all things, a Libertarian think tank.are you surprised?
Yesterday the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) published a report authored by Jason Richwine on the welfare cost of immigration. The CIS headline result, that immigrant-headed households consume more welfare than natives, lacks any kind of reasonable statistical controls. To CIS’s credit, they do include tables with proper controls buried in their report and its appendix. Those tables with proper controls undermine many of their headline findings. In the first section, I will discuss how CIS’ buried results undermine their own headline findings. In the next section, I will explain some of the other problems with their results and headline findings.
Illegals are not eligible for the benefits mentioned in the study. Their US born children, who are US citizens, are eligible for those benefits.
Thanks for you debunker link AUDub. Makes CIS and Richwine look like idjits.
BTW. Why do we let AUDub post on here? Don't he seem like a LBGT Communist type to ya'll?
They shouldn't be getting anything at all.
BB + Mrs. BB = MANY CHILLUNS!!:tongue:I'm just glad there's no obvious loopholes in the system to where by the letter of the law illegals aren't getting benefits, but they really are.
1 illegal x 1 illegal = US Citizen entitled to benefits. LOL!
Your headline seems to be as erroneous as the headline of the report you're trying to debunk. The debunking by Cato is nuanced (not thorough) much like the report citing the welfare expense of immigrants is actually nuanced and not universally applicable as its headline might otherwise suggest.
Excluding the bullet points at the beginning, this is a much more careful report than CIS has issued in the past. As a result, the report does come to a more nuanced conclusion than the headlines about it indicate.
When they use appropriate controls in the later parts of their paper and their appendix, CIS reaches much less negative and sometimes even positive results than their messaging indicates.