Welfare Tab For Children Of Illegal Immigrants Reaches $600M

Originally posted by Wildbob77
The worst thing that has happened to poor people in the US is welfare.

Now, don't get me wrong, a helping hand is a great thing. Anyone can find themselves in a tough spot without family and/or friends to give them a helping hand.

However, the current welfare system is set up to create a lifestyle. Now, we have people in families that have been on welfare for 5 generations. If you're raised in such a family, then it is perfectly normal to expect the government to support you.

The stats I have looked at show most leave welfare in the first 2 years...where did you get 5 generations?

And BTW...anyone on USA Welfare for 5 generations wouldn't seem applicable to the debate of first generation children of illegal immigrants?

Originally posted by Wildbob77
How can we correct this?

After that, you have to report for work every day M-F at 8:00 AM. If you don't show, you don't get any money and you can lose your kids. Work would consist of what ever job the local area needs to be done.. Cleaning streets, refurbishing rundown housing, cleaning parks etc. I would also support job training for careers that are in demand in your area.

Kids in the household would see mom and/or dad going to work every day. That alone could break the welfare as a lifestyle issue.

It should be mandatory for kids in welfare families to get a certain GPA at school say B average otherwise the family doesn't get paid.

It always suprises me how some folks can flippantly pitch a tyrannical communist system as a good thing.


Average time on welfare..
www.huppi.com...

The average AFDC mother is 29 years old and has two children. Close to half of the women in our sample have been previously married. They have an average of four years of work experience. Only five percent were born in a foreign country.
www.socialdesign.org...

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101But I do find offense with your statement that welfare creates a lifestyle situation. That is an outright lie. Try living on just a few hundreds a month of welfare, and you will realize that you would have NO lifestyle by any means, and worse for kids, for the material for education aint cheap, as well as the general rise of food commodities, not to mention the rooms they have to squeeze in.

Statistics would disagree; welfare entitlements have created a culture that depends almost entirely on them and it is more likely than not that being raised in such an environment will result in the continuation of the cycle of poverty rather than the stated goal to break it. Why have families been on the dole for going on 5 generations without a break in the cycle - institutionalized racism no longer exists so it can't be that. As someone else stated more white receive such aid than others. While that is true numerically minorities draw benefits in far greater proportion to their representative numbers in society than whites - why? I don't know do you?

Anyway, along the lines of birth control and procreation in general; of course, my first choice would be to have the federal government not play a role at all in either limiting a person’s ability to procreate (through any form of public funded birth control or abortion) or the intervention to mitigate the effects of their poor decision making (Be it in the form of health care, schooling, or any other programs not enumerated in the constitution). That is not the current environment.

However, since we are already in the role of the latter (providing aid and comfort) it seems the former (setting limits and restrictions) would also then be necessary.

As it stands now the government has assumed the role of the indulgent and forgiving Nanny who will assist these people and their innocent offspring as they do and continue to make poor choices over and over.

What we lack is the necessarily complimentary role of the rational decision making father who will impose discipline and set boundaries.

I contend that much like a family without both roles it is more likely to fail than not. A family with one or both parents who coddle, tolerate and even reward poor behavior without the opposite and equal role of that of a standard setting enforcer will soon be bankrupt (morally and financially).

The poor and ignorant (who I guess do not understand how babies are made) are indulged and forgiven and in some cases even rewarded (more money for each child) for their poor decision making under the guise of protecting the innocent children who they create. This is in the form of welfare, wic, food stamps, head start, free/reduced child care etc.

While at the same time there are virtually no limits upon those programs - "for the sake of the children". No one in their right mind wishes ill to a child – yet where does one draw the line? How much “aid” is too much and for how long should one be able to draw the “aid” – I contend that we have gone way too far. People can and do draw the aid forever and pass on that tendency to their often many and varied offspring.

It may sound harsh but if these people who have, then continue to have children they cannot afford or support were punished and controlled rather than indulged and rewarded the behavior would likely and necessarily change.

I contend that while it may seem cruel forcing an irresponsible person to watch their child starve might indeed reinforce the idea that continued procreation without the means to support the offspring might be a bad idea.

However, we continue to not only support these individuals here with money from our taxes, we support the third world hungry and poor who breed like rabbits (knowingly spreading AIDs as well) while they live in places where no food grows or there is no stability (wars, strife etc.) in which to raise their offspring. Obviously, the message is not setting in that this is bad.

Until that situation changes the burden will just continue to increase since there is virtually no down side to their stupid choices.

If people want to accept government hand outs I contend that they should also then necessarily cede a good portion of their right to make similar decisions that lead to the predicament in the first place.

1] What I mean here are benefits being dependant on being drug and alcohol free; and mandatory contraception and some form of employment for the benefit of the state. Hell, they can pick up trash on the highways or whatever - something.
2] This goes for both the fathers (who largely go un involved in the process of family after the act of procreation) and the mothers.
3] Hunt the fathers down; garnish their wages make them pay something either labor or cash - a man's role is to support and defend his offspring. If you father 3 children out of wedlock and can't support them I say mandatory sterilization for you! DNA tests can prove this if the mothers had to name the father to get the benefits we'd be able to recoup some of the loss IMO. If you are so morally bankrupt you don’t know who the father is name all your partners and let the DNA tests find out

One should cede some freedoms in this situation; much like when one (perhaps unemployed or handicapped) lives under the roof of a parent as an adult in exchange for this parental support continued past the norm and that is extraordinary in nature. This is no different if the state has to assume that role – likely they will have to give up some of their “adult freedoms” in excahnge.

At least I know I would make my kids in that situation - not going to live here and depend on me and do as you damn well please while I pay for it.

However, in the “progressive world” it’s not that way – there is always other people’s money to spend. If you haven’t noticed a cash cow only has so much blood, it is running out…

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fa4026992254.jpg[/atsimg]

The bottom line is that there is no role or authority for the federal government to take money from one person and give it to another under the constitution - this is without regard to the wealth of the former or the need of the latter.

Redistribution is theft with a fancy name. This video has some good ideas on the differnces between collectivist and individualist thingking with regards to charity.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


My heart is open however I think that the current system is broken.

As a society we need to figure out how to help those who fall on hard times. The current system does not seem to address fundamental issue associated with the poor. That would include a lack of current job skills and or a means to find employment that provides a reasonable standard of living.

reply to post by maybereal11


Here's some links

Three generations of welfare cheats

How many consecutive generations of Democrats should be able to receive welfare

Welfare reform could break cycle for some families

Is the correlation in welfare participation across generations spurious? Read more: www.faqs.org...

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by maybereal11

 

How many consecutive generations of Democrats should be able to receive welfare

I'll check them out...I have to say this cracked me up though...Is the inference that it is OK for consecutive generations of Republicans?

It erodes the credibility of the article even before I click...the article title waves the "partisan lunatic" flag.

A case could be made that the reason that the majority of welfare recipients are white is likely do to heavily impovershed regions in the south that tend to skew Republican these days. There is ammunition there to begin a partisan political discussion on the political affiliation of the majority of welfare recipients...but really...is that productive?

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Just because of a minority of illegals who abused the welfare system, and some scream here loudly that ALL illegals are abusing the system, and are better off than themselves???

Fine. Keep your money. Shut off the tap. Enjoy your wealth. Be selfish. Bow before your corporate masters as they robbed you blind, and in your frustrations, you take it out on people who suffered more than you, lacking in opportunities of every kind and cannot retaliate back. And their innocent children as well.

These group of self centred inhuman beasts make me sick! Even animals of the wild will not hurt or harm their own young. I am not be a rich man, but i will do all I can to help them, which is limited in ability alone, espacially the children, to escape the poverty trap from their own country as well as in a new country. There will be bad folks, but like everything else, there will always be good folks and at least some good in ALL if given the chances you had.

We are selfish? Tell that to the 87 year old woman who was in tears because she was denied help with medical bills of thousands of dollars because she made 3.00 over the poverty limit. All the while illegals have their needs met and have no worries. Tell that to the man or woman who lost thier jobs to an illegal and don't know how they will feed and care for their families. Who is lacking opportunities here?? Certainly not our illegals!!!!.

We take it out on people who come here and steal identities and present false documents who have never had a background or healthcheck. This is dangerous to our legal citizens. Way too many people have died at the hands of an illegal simply because our laws were not enforced. How would you feel if an illegal killed your 3 year old child knowing he would be alive today had the laws been enforced? How about losing your wife and daughter as one man did all in the same day because of someone who was never supposed to be here to begin with? That is why we have laws!!!!!

What gives an illegal the right to place themselves above citizens and above the respectful people who come here legally? What makes them matter more than anyone else?

It is one thing helping others which we have done and continue to do, but when many citizens cannot afford medical or rent or whatever, have no jobs and their tax dollars are helping someone who breaks the law instead, that is neither fair nor right!! You can't understand why we are angry and resentful? WOW!

reply to post by gandhi


Really?

Lets say you are in an area without food. Their are you and your woman (or you and your man depending).

There is just enough food to feed yourselves and no outside help. In the same area, there is an herb you know for fact will prevent pregnancy.

Do you have a kid you are unable to feed or do you take prevention?

NOT preventing a pregnancy when you are unable to care/feed it without outside help is IRRESPONSIBLE!

You are a prime example of welfare mentality. "someone else will help me so why bother".

reply to post by ldyserenity


Because morally I can not advocate the starving of children. I get you. I understand that american children fall through thr cracks right along with their parents. That is what makes this so one sided and unjust. I have been denied as well, I remember being in tears I was so embarrassed to even be in a situation tohave to ask for help but I had no other option. I woke up that day to a faulty system that cares for others more than their own. It is disgusting to see others slide right through, get in their Escalades and ride off into the sunset. Something needs to change... yesterday.

Originally posted by maybereal11The stats I have looked at show most leave welfare in the first 2 years...where did you get 5 generations?

Here is the multigenerational issue: I am not speaking for the source of the other guy.

Moreover, dependence passes between generations; children raised in families that receive welfare assistance are themselves three times more likely to be on welfare than other children when they become adults.

This inter-generational dependency is a clear indication that the welfare system is failing in its goal to lift the poor from poverty to self-sufficiency and is trapping many families in a repeating cycle of debilitating and self-destructive behavior.

Originally posted by maybereal11Average time on welfare..
www.huppi.com...

The average AFDC mother is 29 years old and has two children. Close to half of the women in our sample have been previously married. They have an average of four years of work experience. Only five percent were born in a foreign country.
www.socialdesign.org...

Of the over 4.5 million families currently receiving assistance through Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC well over half will remain dependent for over ten years, many for fifteen years or longer.

Originally posted by maybereal11And BTW...anyone on USA Welfare for 5 generations wouldn't seem applicable to the debate of first generation children of illegal immigrants?It always surprises me how some folks can flippantly pitch a tyrannical communist system as a good thing.

I understand that this was the OP's assertion; however, I think some (like me as well) are trying to point out it is not a racist stance we have we equally disagree with welfare as the program is currently run regardless of who the beneficiary is.

Welfare is a direct assault on the family unit:

The anti-marriage and anti-labor effects of welfare are simple and profound. The current welfare system may best be conceptualized as a system that offers each single mother with two children a paycheck of combined benefits worth an average of between $8,500 and $15,000, depending on the state.

The mother has a contract with the government: She will continue to receive her paycheck as long as she fulfills two conditions. She must not work; and she must not marry an employed male.

Single parent homes are; however, not the only ones who get welfare…

Moreover, most low- and moderate-income parents would have a huge incentive to enroll in welfare, at least briefly, to become eligible for the long-term continuing benefits. Such a system would inevitably devolve into one in which the majority of low- and moderate-income single-and two-parent families received substantial welfare payments, raising the overall cost of welfare by hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

All quotes above from this article: Combating Family Disintegration, Crime, and Dependence: Welfare Reform and Beyondwww.heritage.org...

All quotes below from this article:Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crimewww.cato.org...

Last year, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that "the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today." Their conclusion appears to be confirmed by academic research. For example, research by Dr. June O'Neill's and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.

Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children from single-parent families are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit anti-social behavior. Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding other variables constant, black children from single- parent households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70 percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates. Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.

So in essence unrestricted access (what you are calling communist and tyrannical by placing imitations and conditions upon its receipt) to welfare contributes to crime, poor work ethic and the degeneration of the family unit. Way to go welfare state!

So in conclusion; this obvious inter-generational dependency is a clear indication that the welfare system is failing in its goal to lift the poor from poverty to self-sufficiency and is trapping many families in a repeating cycle of debilitating and self-destructive behavior.

I think this is the opposite of the intended effect. Been going on in this way for some time perhaps we could try personal responsibility for a while see if that works...?

Insanity, after all is to do same thing over and over but expect a different outcome - right?

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Here's some links

Three generations of welfare cheats

Singular example...Not all Arizonians are mentally unstable, though I could provide you a a few links proving one is. Statistics would be of interest to me.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
How many consecutive generations of Democrats should be able to receive welfare

Okay...against my better judgement I clicked and read...It's a blog post spouting partisan junk and mildly racist crap and they don't even cite a singular example...

An blog posting whose theme is...and I quote..

"most welfare recipients are simply irresponsible maggots who will live their entire meaningless lives on "the system"

is not evidence of anything...it's jsut repeating what you were saying in a much more ugly fashion.

I am having a really hard time taking you seriously if this is your supporting evidence...notice I cited research and stats?

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Welfare reform could break cycle for some families

This is written in 1998 in the context of this..
en.wikipedia.org...

Welfare reform is a good thing, but nearly all of the assumptions and claims you have made concerning welfare remain unsupported by any of these links.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Is the correlation in welfare participation across generations spurious? Read more: www.faqs.org...

uhh I don't think this article is saying what you hope it is.

Like every other source you posted it says nothing about the percentage of welfare recipients that are multi-generational and does not (like every one of your links) support your welfare recipients for "5 generations" claim at all.

What it DOES say is that if you make an effort to REDUCE a mother's dependance on Welfare thier child is statistically less likely to be on welfare....but this only applies to blacks...not so much whites and other races.

Was that the case you are making? That blacks respond better inter-generationally to direct job assistance and that whites are more entrenched in thier multi-generational welfare dependance?

The observed correlation in welfare participation between mothers and their daughters is examined as to whether it reflects causal links or correlated unobservables. The study was undertaken to analyze whether the reduction of one generation's welfare participation has a bearing on the next generation. Through the Panel Study of Income Dynamics,[u/] it was revealed that correlated unobservables are significant in explaining the intergenerational correlation in welfare participation among blacks but not non-blacks.