NY Times Finally Finds a Downside to Mass, Unregulated Immigration

 

In the United States, mass, unregulated immigration is seen as the key to a permanent, Democrat governing majority when third-world migrants and their offspring tip every large red state to blue. This majority will, in turn, impose the full panoply of Nordic taxes and welfare services. For the sake of cheap labor (and a welfare-funded consumer market), big business is firmly in the camp of supporting the mass importation of the very voters that will destroy the capitalist system, thus fulfilling Lenin’s prophecy that “the capitalist will sell you the rope you will hang him with.”

In Sweden, on the other hand, some see mass immigration as a potential threat to the socialist welfare system.

The endurance of the Nordic model has long depended on two crucial elements — the public’s willingness to pay some of the highest taxes on earth, and the understanding that everyone is supposed to work. The state ensures that working-age people are prepared with the skills for high-wage jobs, in industries like technology and advanced manufacturing.

Sweden’s sharp influx of immigrants — the largest of any European nation, as a share of the overall population — directly tests this proposition.

But wait, I thought “Diversity is our strength.” Well, not so much. Swedes are realizing that the huge taxes they pay for social services are instead subsidizing uneducated, unskilled, frequently illiterate third-world denizens. Swedish taxpayers are finding that they have to wait in line behind migrants for health care (much like in California) and that social programs are being cut to pay for idle, hostile foreigners living in their midst. Also, more violent crime, car fires, and no-go zones.

Or, as the reliably socialist author of the piece explains (paraphrasing): White people are greedy, bigoted against brown-skinned foreigners, and resent paying for them, even though they are wonderful people as his carefully selected examples illustrate. And, as a result, are less enthusiastic about paying for a system that they get less and less out of.

Sweden’s experience with refugees suggests a more pragmatic, even transactional conception of the social welfare state, a sort of membership club in which people pay dues for expected services. If too many people get the benefits for free — especially people who stand out as different from the majority — faith in the system is imperiled.

Yeah, the thing about that is, the Nordic-style welfare state is always sold in transactional terms. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may preach the morality of socialism, but their selling point is: “Higher taxes will reward you with free health care, free higher education, and green energy.” (The experience of the Veterans Administration and the US public school system may make some question the value of “free” health care and education from the government, but such concerns are limited to that part of the population capable of critical thought and rational analysis.)

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 27 comments.

  1. Bishop Wash Member

    For years opponents of the welfare state have argued that one reason places like Sweden work is because of their homogeneity. Interesting to see it breakdown as the homogeneity breakdown. 

    • #1
    • July 26, 2019, at 6:31 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  2. Zafar Member

    Alternative view:

    Nordic countries are the way they are, I’m told, because they are small, homogeneous “nanny states” where everyone looks alike, thinks alike, and belongs to a big extended family. This, in turn, makes Nordic citizens willing to sacrifice their own interests to help their neighbors. Americans don’t feel a similar kinship with other Americans, I’m told, and thus will never sacrifice their own interests for the common good. What this is mostly taken to mean is that Americans will never, ever agree to pay higher taxes to provide universal social services, as the Nordics do…

    But this vision of homogenous, altruistic Nordic lands is mostly a fantasy. The choices Nordic countries have made have little to do with altruism or kinship. Rather, Nordic people have made their decisions out of self-interest. Nordic nations offer their citizens—all of their citizens, but especially the middle class—high-quality services that save people a lot of money, time, and trouble. This is what Americans fail to understand: My taxes in Finland were used to pay for top-notch services for me.

    …Nordics are not only just as selfish as everyone else on this earth but they can—and do—dislike many of their fellow citizens just as much as people with different political views dislike each other in other countries. As for homogeneity, Sweden already has a bigger share of foreign-born residents than the U.S. The reason Nordics stick with the system is because they can see that on the whole, they come out ahead—not just as a group, but as individuals.

    • #2
    • July 26, 2019, at 7:47 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  3. Cato Rand Reagan

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    For years opponents of the welfare state have argued that one reason places like Sweden work is because of their homogeneity. Interesting to see it breakdown as the homogeneity breakdown.

    Of course. When you have few free riders and the ones you do have happen to be your relatives who’ve got some health issues and therefore can be forgiven for their lack of productivity, you can hang on to a welfare state. As Jonah Goldberg says, his household operates on thoroughly Marxist principles – from each according to his ability. . . . But as the free rider population grows, that gets strained. When there is no natural affinity for the free riders, it gets strained further.

    I think the Times is really chocked off about the lack of natural affinity for the new migrants. As usual, the left is pissing into the wind against human nature.

    New flash – we develop natural affinities by having things in common, by exposure, by connection, by shared beliefs and values, etc. It’s perfectly natural to care more about your brother than the guy down the street. And it’s perfectly natural to care more about the guy down the street who’s a member of your church than some guy who lives on the other side of the planet with whom literally the only thing you share is your species. It need have nothing to do with skin color, although that can and often does correlate to these varying degrees of affinity. The point is these differences in affinity are unavoidably human and the sanctimonious leftist prigs who pretend they’re evil or “racist” are no less subject to them than the rest of us are.

    • #3
    • July 26, 2019, at 7:56 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  4. GFHandle Member

    Mickey Kaus has been an immigration hawk for years. He is a liberal Democrat. (I say “liberal” not “progressive” and not “socialist” because these are different and should be recognized as such. I am tired of illiberals being called “liberals” by conservative commentators.) He wants a big welfare state. (A welfare state is not the same as a socialist state.) He wants a wall.

    He knows you cannot have a robust welfare state and open borders. The wall will send a signal that is the reverse of the signals we now send. It will therefore protect the welfare state and allow it to grow. (I don’t know what Mickey Kaus thinks about the debt problem.)

    As for homogeneity, the Nordics still have some of the old Lutheran work ethic, it seems. Someone on a podcast said a man will still get dirty looks if he is in a store during work hours on a Tuesday. You can have a more generous welfare state if folks aren’t trying to game it all the time. (And I am NOT saying that all or most transfer payments involve cheaters–far from it. But cheating exists. I spent enough time around wise guys to know that there are people whose full time job is figuring out how any change in rules or technology can be gamed. Policy makers either ignore them or claim their effect is minor.)

    • #4
    • July 26, 2019, at 8:01 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  5. I Walton Member

    Sweden enjoys a freer economy than we do in all areas other than labor markets. That worked because they enjoy one of the most homogeneous population on earth, folks who would have starved and frozen to death had they not been hard workers. They are tiny, small enough to change the system. We won’t be able to reverse similar insanity because our national legislators are several layers removed from voting citizens in a nation 30 times larger and the most diverse nation on earth.

    • #5
    • July 27, 2019, at 3:52 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  6. Full Size Tabby Member

    Or is it strong cultural history? But a strong cultural history requires a relatively stable population, and a sudden influx of immigrants who don’t share that cultural history can upset the social norms.

    But even without immigration a population can reject a longstanding cultural history. I still remember an interview on one of James Pethokoukis’ podcasts a couple of years ago in which a Nordic academic said he was finding that even the ethnic and cultural Swedes were abandoning longstanding cultural norms as some of the perverse incentives of a welfare state became stronger than the cultural history.

    That same academic claimed that, on paper, in the 1970’s and 1980’s there wasn’t that much difference between the Swedish welfare state and the Greek welfare state, yet in practice they performed very differently. He attributed that difference to different cultural heritage.

    So, when someone suggests a transactional approach of “let’s adopt Swedish welfare state systems” I say, “after you instill in the population 500 years of Swedish cultural history.”

    • #6
    • July 27, 2019, at 6:35 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  7. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo Post author

    Astrong cultural history requires a relatively stable population, and a sudden influx of immigrants who don’t share that cultural history can upset the social norms.

    One of the conceits of the open borders/NeverTrump crowd is that people are basically interchangeable, and that culture doesn’t matter. And from their perspective shielded by layers of wealth and privilege from the negative consequences of unregulated mass immigration, it doesn’t. The Bushes, the Romneys, the Pelosis, are never going to worry about crime in *their* neighborhoods perpetrated by MS-13 or Somali mobs. Nor will their children have to sit in classrooms crowded by children who don’t speak the language. Nor will their children miss out on educational or economic opportunities because of preference policies aimed at immigrants.

    • #7
    • July 27, 2019, at 7:29 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  8. Zafar Member

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    Astrong cultural history requires a relatively stable population, and a sudden influx of immigrants who don’t share that cultural history can upset the social norms.

    One of the conceits of the open borders/NeverTrump crowd is that people are basically interchangeable, and that culture doesn’t matter. And from their perspective shielded by layers of wealth and privilege from the negative consequences of unregulated mass immigration, it doesn’t. The Bushes, the Romneys, the Pelosis, are never going to worry about crime in *their* neighborhoods perpetrated by MS-13 or Somali mobs. Nor will their children have to sit in classrooms crowded by children who don’t speak the language. Nor will their children miss out on educational or economic opportunities because of preference policies aimed at immigrants.

    It’s always people who will not face competition themselves who are the most pro it for others. 

    • #8
    • July 27, 2019, at 9:11 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  9. Zafar Member

    A welfare state (confusing name, because it is a lot more than welfare per se) sits within a country’s economy. Perhaps that’s more of the difference between Greece and Sweden?

    • #9
    • July 27, 2019, at 9:13 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  10. Full Size Tabby Member

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    Astrong cultural history requires a relatively stable population, and a sudden influx of immigrants who don’t share that cultural history can upset the social norms.

    One of the conceits of the open borders/NeverTrump crowd is that people are basically interchangeable, and that culture doesn’t matter. And from their perspective shielded by layers of wealth and privilege from the negative consequences of unregulated mass immigration, it doesn’t. The Bushes, the Romneys, the Pelosis, are never going to worry about crime in *their* neighborhoods perpetrated by MS-13 or Somali mobs. Nor will their children have to sit in classrooms crowded by children who don’t speak the language. Nor will their children miss out on educational or economic opportunities because of preference policies aimed at immigrants.

    I think it was Victor Davis Hanson who presented an analogy that has stuck with me: Hypothetical trade between Great Britain and Egypt. If Great Britain sends to Egypt millions of pounds of wool in exchange for millions of pounds of cotton from Egypt, nothing about either country changes (except maybe a little about their clothing). But if instead of wool and cotton Great Britain and Egypt exchange a couple of million people, that exchange is likely to lead to fundamental changes in the cultural fabric of both countries. 

    I have encountered your issue in many conversations about immigration. I hang out mostly with relatively high income white collar professionals. When they argue for unlimited immigration they talk about with excitement about new ethnic restaurants, additional busboys for the restaurants they already patronize, more maids and landscapers, etc. But they can do so confident that the new immigrants will not be living 10-to-an-apartment next door to them, or causing the teachers in their schools to have to divert attention from their children, or competing with them for their professional-class jobs. 

    • #10
    • July 27, 2019, at 9:18 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  11. Barfly Member

    I think the simplest way to explain the Nordic countries’ once-successful welfare states, and their ongoing failure, is trust.

    Victor Tango Kilo: The endurance of the Nordic model has long depended on two crucial elements — the public’s willingness to pay some of the highest taxes on earth, and the understanding that everyone is supposed to work.

    When everyone trusts everyone else to contribute and obey the laws and customs, then society works. When the advanced Nords invited a large invasion of primitive people from primitive cultures, everything began to break down. The native people perceive that the invaders are privileged – they break laws with impunity, behave with aggressive disrespect, and do not work to contribute in any way the settled culture might find meaningful. 

    Then their elites ignore it all: the primitive behavior of the invading tribespeople, and the complaints of their citizens. That destroys trust, which is the only thing that permits a welfare state to function.

    • #11
    • July 27, 2019, at 9:41 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  12. Cato Rand Reagan

    Barfly (View Comment):

    I think the simplest way to explain the Nordic countries’ once-successful welfare states, and their ongoing failure, is trust.

    Victor Tango Kilo: The endurance of the Nordic model has long depended on two crucial elements — the public’s willingness to pay some of the highest taxes on earth, and the understanding that everyone is supposed to work.

    When everyone trusts everyone else to contribute and obey the laws and customs, then society works. When the advanced Nords invited a large invasion of primitive people from primitive cultures, everything began to break down. The native people perceive that the invaders are privileged – they break laws with impunity, behave with aggressive disrespect, and do not work to contribute in any way the settled culture might find meaningful.

    Then their elites ignore it all: the primitive behavior of the invading tribespeople, and the complaints of their citizens. That destroys trust, which is the only thing that permits a welfare state to function.

    I’m not sure the terms “primitive” or “tribespeople” are helpful but I concur with your essential point.

    • #12
    • July 27, 2019, at 10:16 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. Full Size Tabby Member

    Victor Tango Kilo: even though they are wonderful people as his carefully selected examples illustrate.

    One of my “open borders” friends keeps citing a couple who initially came into the United States illegally, but are very hard working people as justification for his open borders preference. But he is assuming that all people who enter the US illegally are equally hardworking, and seems unwilling to recognize that among the immigrants might be some lazy bums or even some “bad hombres.” So, yes, people can be very selective about the examples they use.

    • #13
    • July 27, 2019, at 3:15 PM PDT
    • Like
  14. EtCarter Listener

    Legal citizens pay a social security tax on the paycheck the company pays them every week and that money is available for social programs and after paying in for an adult lifetime a basic living retirement income is waiting for each person…unless illegal non-citizens who without citizen ID cannot and do not pay in to social security, and yet these people who do not pay in and are not legal citizens have been collecting all of the money citizens paid in to support large families that receive even more of that social security US citizens paid into (money out of the weekly check for years).

    Did the NYT hire a math expert to tell a system that gives all the money people paid in to people who have not paid in will lead to zero money for legal citizens who expected to receive back the tax they paid in at retirement?

     

    • #14
    • July 27, 2019, at 3:39 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  15. Bishop Wash Member

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Alternative view:

    Nordic countries are the way they are, I’m told, because they are small, homogeneous “nanny states” where everyone looks alike, thinks alike, and belongs to a big extended family. This, in turn, makes Nordic citizens willing to sacrifice their own interests to help their neighbors. Americans don’t feel a similar kinship with other Americans, I’m told, and thus will never sacrifice their own interests for the common good. What this is mostly taken to mean is that Americans will never, ever agree to pay higher taxes to provide universal social services, as the Nordics do…

    But this vision of homogenous, altruistic Nordic lands is mostly a fantasy. The choices Nordic countries have made have little to do with altruism or kinship. Rather, Nordic people have made their decisions out of self-interest. Nordic nations offer their citizens—all of their citizens, but especially the middle class—high-quality services that save people a lot of money, time, and trouble. This is what Americans fail to understand: My taxes in Finland were used to pay for top-notch services for me.

    …Nordics are not only just as selfish as everyone else on this earth but they can—and do—dislike many of their fellow citizens just as much as people with different political views dislike each other in other countries. As for homogeneity, Sweden already has a bigger share of foreign-born residents than the U.S. The reason Nordics stick with the system is because they can see that on the whole, they come out ahead—not just as a group, but as individuals.

    Interesting take. 

    • #15
    • July 27, 2019, at 4:00 PM PDT
    • Like
  16. Zafar Member

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Alternative view:

    …Nordics are not only just as selfish as everyone else on this earth but they can—and do—dislike many of their fellow citizens just as much as people with different political views dislike each other in other countries. As for homogeneity, Sweden already has a bigger share of foreign-born residents than the U.S. The reason Nordics stick with the system is because they can see that on the whole, they come out ahead—not just as a group, but as individuals.

    Interesting take.

    A welfare state includes, at its core:

    Universal health care (in some cases via universal health insurance; + some subsidised pharmaceuticals when you need them);

    Universal access to education (public education);

    Income support (unemployment or pensions, the latter also sometimes via a private mechanism; + subsidised child care, parental leave); and

    Access to housing (funded emergency accommodation/shelters, public housing, rental assistance for pensioners, etc.).

    All paid for with relatively high taxes.

    My feeling is that because the word ‘welfare’ is used, people on Ricochet might focus on income and public housing (which are part of the safety net, ie not for middle class people) and not on healthcare and education(things every sector of society uses). 

    Welfare states are popular with those who live in them because of all four of these, however, not just the last two – iow because they are popular because of people’s self-interest at least as much as they are because of people’s altruism, fellow feeling, etc.

    (Also – it’s more comfortable to talk about how we consume health care and education – less comfortable talking about how we might sometimes need income support or help with access to housing. Perhaps it’s all some sneaky self-interest at some level?)

    No welfare state is perfect – and neither is any state’s integration of migrants, especially refugees – but perfection isn’t the measure of success we use for anything else. “Not perfect” is not a serious systemic criticism. “Least bad” according to clearly defined criteria (chosen by a society) might make more sense – though that requires comparison.

    Welfare states everywhere in the West are under strain because of Western societies’ ageing demographics. Not just migration (which conveniently pushes responsibility for this onto ‘them’) but people in our societies (that would be ‘us’) choosing to have fewer children.

     

     

    • #16
    • July 27, 2019, at 6:06 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  17. Zafar Member

    EtCarter (View Comment):

    Legal citizens pay a social security tax on the paycheck the company pays them every week and that money is available for social programs and after paying in for an adult lifetime a basic living retirement income is waiting for each person…unless illegal non-citizens who without citizen ID cannot and do not pay in to social security, and yet these people who do not pay in and are not legal citizens have been collecting all of the money citizens paid in to support large families that receive even more of that social security US citizens paid into (money out of the weekly check for years).

    Is that how it works?

    Undocumented immigrants quietly pay billions into Social Security and receive no benefits

    From which:

    If all undocumented immigrants were deported today, next year’s Social Security trust funds would have approximately $13 billion less for benefit payouts. It’s a considerable loss of dollars, especially when it’s projected that the Social Security funds will be depleted by 2034.

    According to New American Economy, undocumented immigrants contributed $13 billion into the Social Security funds in 2016 and $3 billion to Medicare. Three years prior, the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, Stephen Goss, wrote a report that estimated undocumented immigrants contributed $12 billion into Social Security.

    Approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the U.S. with no legal authorization to work, yet an estimated 8 million do, both on and off the books. Since undocumented immigrants don’t have Social Security numbers and are not authorized to work legally in the U.S., they are not eligible for any Social Security benefits, whether they’ve paid into the system or not.

    • #17
    • July 27, 2019, at 6:25 PM PDT
    • Like
  18. Bishop Wash Member

    Zafar (View Comment):

    EtCarter (View Comment):

    Legal citizens pay a social security tax on the paycheck the company pays them every week and that money is available for social programs and after paying in for an adult lifetime a basic living retirement income is waiting for each person…unless illegal non-citizens who without citizen ID cannot and do not pay in to social security, and yet these people who do not pay in and are not legal citizens have been collecting all of the money citizens paid in to support large families that receive even more of that social security US citizens paid into (money out of the weekly check for years).

    Is that how it works?

    Undocumented immigrants quietly pay billions into Social Security and receive no benefits

    From which:

    If all undocumented immigrants were deported today, next year’s Social Security trust funds would have approximately $13 billion less for benefit payouts. It’s a considerable loss of dollars, especially when it’s projected that the Social Security funds will be depleted by 2034.

    According to New American Economy, undocumented immigrants contributed $13 billion into the Social Security funds in 2016 and $3 billion to Medicare. Three years prior, the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, Stephen Goss, wrote a report that estimated undocumented immigrants contributed $12 billion into Social Security.

    Approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the U.S. with no legal authorization to work, yet an estimated 8 million do, both on and off the books. Since undocumented immigrants don’t have Social Security numbers and are not authorized to work legally in the U.S., they are not eligible for any Social Security benefits, whether they’ve paid into the system or not.

    I was wondering how that worked. Using a fake SSN will credit the other person. The part I didn’t know was self employed illegals will get an individual tax identification number.

    • #18
    • July 27, 2019, at 7:15 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  19. Cato Rand Reagan

    Zafar (View Comment):

    EtCarter (View Comment):

    Legal citizens pay a social security tax on the paycheck the company pays them every week and that money is available for social programs and after paying in for an adult lifetime a basic living retirement income is waiting for each person…unless illegal non-citizens who without citizen ID cannot and do not pay in to social security, and yet these people who do not pay in and are not legal citizens have been collecting all of the money citizens paid in to support large families that receive even more of that social security US citizens paid into (money out of the weekly check for years).

    Is that how it works?

    Undocumented immigrants quietly pay billions into Social Security and receive no benefits

    From which:

    If all undocumented immigrants were deported today, next year’s Social Security trust funds would have approximately $13 billion less for benefit payouts. It’s a considerable loss of dollars, especially when it’s projected that the Social Security funds will be depleted by 2034.

    According to New American Economy, undocumented immigrants contributed $13 billion into the Social Security funds in 2016 and $3 billion to Medicare. Three years prior, the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, Stephen Goss, wrote a report that estimated undocumented immigrants contributed $12 billion into Social Security.

    Approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the U.S. with no legal authorization to work, yet an estimated 8 million do, both on and off the books. Since undocumented immigrants don’t have Social Security numbers and are not authorized to work legally in the U.S., they are not eligible for any Social Security benefits, whether they’ve paid into the system or not.

    What is that source you’re citing Zafar? It looks like an advocacy piece in a publication I’m unfamiliar with and it’s making a claim that kind of strains credulity to anyone familiar with the US payroll tax system.

    • #19
    • July 27, 2019, at 8:29 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  20. EtCarter Listener

    Zafar (View Comment):

    EtCarter (View Comment):

    Legal citizens pay a social security tax on the paycheck the company pays them every week and that money is available for social programs and after paying in for an adult lifetime a basic living retirement income is waiting for each person…unless illegal non-citizens who without citizen ID cannot and do not pay in to social security, and yet these people who do not pay in and are not legal citizens have been collecting all of the money citizens paid in to support large families that receive even more of that social security US citizens paid into (money out of the weekly check for years).

    Is that how it works?

    Undocumented immigrants quietly pay billions into Social Security and receive no benefits

    From which:

    If all undocumented immigrants were deported today, next year’s Social Security trust funds would have approximately $13 billion less for benefit payouts. It’s a considerable loss of dollars, especially when it’s projected that the Social Security funds will be depleted by 2034.

    According to New American Economy, undocumented immigrants contributed $13 billion into the Social Security funds in 2016 and $3 billion to Medicare. Three years prior, the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, Stephen Goss, wrote a report that estimated undocumented immigrants contributed $12 billion into Social Security.

    Approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the U.S. with no legal authorization to work, yet an estimated 8 million do, both on and off the books. Since undocumented immigrants don’t have Social Security numbers and are not authorized to work legally in the U.S., they are not eligible for any Social Security benefits, whether they’ve paid into the system or not.

    That’s great to hear but is there any documented evidence admissible for fed and local verification? I’m not trying to be a jerk but as an average citizen I recall the tv news reporting that thousands of people were being brought from the middle east and being given access to the ~4000 dollar living expense an average US guy like myself would receive as monthly ssi disabilty. The report made no distinctioni between refugees or economico migrants. My question is based on #1 wondering as a young man why I couldn’t opt out of the ss tax and#2 without a government with the ability to access verified accurate records\documents how can the average private citizen trust (in the banking sense) that the government and state system that kept our records and taxed accordingly is in reality using that money arbitrarily in a way that creates a law of diminishingin returns without any evidence for lifetime legal, documented taxpayers to have a court try a case for possible injustice? Even none profit voluntary charities in a none socialist nation need to document and keep right records for a reason, yes?

    However, if the article you have linked solves this problem for local and federal constitutionally legitimate use of US taxpayers money, then I will thank you. Thank you regardless of what the article yields in advance for being patient with my simplistic question.

    • #20
    • July 27, 2019, at 10:08 PM PDT
    • Like
  21. EtCarter Listener

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    EtCarter (View Comment):

    Legal citizens pay a social security tax on the paycheck the company pays them every week and that money is available for social programs and after paying in for an adult lifetime a basic living retirement income is waiting for each person…unless illegal non-citizens who without citizen ID cannot and do not pay in to social security, and yet these people who do not pay in and are not legal citizens have been collecting all of the money citizens paid in to support large families that receive even more of that social security US citizens paid into (money out of the weekly check for years).

    Is that how it works?

    Undocumented immigrants quietly pay billions into Social Security and receive no benefits

    From which:

    If all undocumented immigrants were deported today, next year’s Social Security trust funds would have approximately $13 billion less for benefit payouts. It’s a considerable loss of dollars, especially when it’s projected that the Social Security funds will be depleted by 2034.

    According to New American Economy, undocumented immigrants contributed $13 billion into the Social Security funds in 2016 and $3 billion to Medicare. Three years prior, the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration, Stephen Goss, wrote a report that estimated undocumented immigrants contributed $12 billion into Social Security.

    Approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants live in the U.S. with no legal authorization to work, yet an estimated 8 million do, both on and off the books. Since undocumented immigrants don’t have Social Security numbers and are not authorized to work legally in the U.S., they are not eligible for any Social Security benefits, whether they’ve paid into the system or not.

    What is that source you’re citing Zafar? It looks like an advocacy piece in a publication I’m unfamiliar with and it’s making a claim that kind of strains credulity to anyone familiar with the US payroll tax system.

    Thanks @CatoRand for guidance on this link Zafar (or bishop Walsh, I’m new and can’t tell)has challenged me to read and dispel my seeming ignorance. I was feeling like maybe what I originally asked was a legit question.

    • #21
    • July 27, 2019, at 10:12 PM PDT
    • Like
  22. Zafar Member

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    What is that source you’re citing Zafar? It looks like an advocacy piece in a publication I’m unfamiliar with and it’s making a claim that kind of strains credulity to anyone familiar with the US payroll tax system.

    Okay, because I can deny you nothing I will try and find other sources.

    From the horse’s mouth:

    While unauthorized immigrants worked and contributed as much as $13 billion in payroll taxes to the OASDI program in 2010, only about $1 billion in benefit payments during 2010 are attributable to unauthorized work. Thus, we estimate that earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally, and that this effect contributed roughly $12 billion to the cash flow of the program for 2010. We estimate that future years will experience a continuation of this positive impact on the trust funds.

    Now ‘as much as’ does include the possibility of zero, but it seems unlikely.

    EtCarter (View Comment):

    Thank you regardless of what the article yields in advance for being patient with my simplistic question.

    No, thank you for your response EtCarter, and my apologies if my response came across as personally critical or rude. Wrt simplistic, I’m just going off what I can find on the net, so I may be completely wrong (and also possibly simplistic). The federal benefits illegal migrants pay for vs the ones they can access is an interesting question, but so is what is popularly believed about this and why.

    I don’t know which news report you’re referring to, but Politifact addresses a similar point:

    A recent Facebook post laments that senior citizens have to pay for federal health care benefits while undocumented immigrants enjoy the insurance gratis.

    “Why do seniors on Social Security have to pay for Medicare and a supplemental (insurance) and the illegals get it all for free?” asks a post published on the Columbian Post’s Facebook page on Jan. 31.

    The post…had been shared more than 14,000 times by Feb. 26….

    The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services….said….Social Security…determines…eligibility on behalf of Medicare.

    According to [SSA’s] requirements for entitlement, they must be 65 years old, a U.S. resident and either a citizen or a lawful permanent resident…undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible for either Medicare or Social Security.

    “…When undocumented immigrants work with a SS number…they pay into the system but are unable to claim benefits.”

    Re Refugee Cash Assistance:

    The Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) Program [provides cash]…during their first eight months in the U.S.

    A family of 2 (for eg) gets $420/month + medical coverage.

    In case they are working, half their income counts against the grant. (Reduced by 50 cents per dollar earned?)

    In case of unearned income (eg gifts from resettling organisation) RCA is reduced dollar for dollar.

     

     

    • #22
    • July 27, 2019, at 11:05 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  23. Randy Webster Member

    Barfly (View Comment):
    Then their elites ignore it all: the primitive behavior of the invading tribespeople, and the complaints of their citizens.

    Because they can.

    • #23
    • July 28, 2019, at 3:53 AM PDT
    • Like
  24. Zafar Member

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):
    Then their elites ignore it all: the primitive behavior of the invading tribespeople, and the complaints of their citizens.

    Because they can.

    If the elites perceive the world in terms of class do they even see a meaningful difference between working class native born and working class migrants? Perhaps they don’t. 

    • #24
    • July 28, 2019, at 4:33 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  25. Cato Rand Reagan

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    What is that source you’re citing Zafar? It looks like an advocacy piece in a publication I’m unfamiliar with and it’s making a claim that kind of strains credulity to anyone familiar with the US payroll tax system.

    Okay, because I can deny you nothing I will try and find other sources.

    From the horse’s mouth:

    While unauthorized immigrants worked and contributed as much as $13 billion in payroll taxes to the OASDI program in 2010, only about $1 billion in benefit payments during 2010 are attributable to unauthorized work. Thus, we estimate that earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally, and that this effect contributed roughly $12 billion to the cash flow of the program for 2010. We estimate that future years will experience a continuation of this positive impact on the trust funds.

    Now ‘as much as’ does include the possibility of zero, but it seems unlikely.

    EtCarter (View Comment):

    Thank you regardless of what the article yields in advance for being patient with my simplistic question.

    No, thank you for your response EtCarter, and my apologies if my response came across as personally critical or rude. Wrt simplistic, I’m just going off what I can find on the net, so I may be completely wrong (and also possibly simplistic). The federal benefits illegal migrants pay for vs the ones they can access is an interesting question, but so is what is popularly believed about this and why.

    I don’t know which news report you’re referring to, but Politifact addresses a similar point:

    A recent Facebook post laments that senior citizens have to pay for federal health care benefits while undocumented immigrants enjoy the insurance gratis.

    “Why do seniors on Social Security have to pay for Medicare and a supplemental (insurance) and the illegals get it all for free?” asks a post published on the Columbian Post’s Facebook page on Jan. 31.

    The post…had been shared more than 14,000 times by Feb. 26….

    The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services….said….Social Security…determines…eligibility on behalf of Medicare.

    According to [SSA’s] requirements for entitlement, they must be 65 years old, a U.S. resident and either a citizen or a lawful permanent resident…undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible for either Medicare or Social Security.

    “…When undocumented immigrants work with a SS number…they pay into the system but are unable to claim benefits.”

    Re Refugee Cash Assistance:

    The Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) Program [provides cash]…during their first eight months in the U.S.

    A family of 2 (for eg) gets $420/month + medical coverage.

    In case they are working, half their income counts against the grant. (Reduced by 50 cents per dollar earned?)

    In case of unearned income (eg gifts from resettling organisation) RCA is reduced dollar for dollar.

     

     

    Thanks Zafar. I concede the point.

    • #25
    • July 28, 2019, at 4:34 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  26. The Reticulator Member

    Zafar (View Comment):
    But this vision of homogenous, altruistic Nordic lands is mostly a fantasy.

    That’s kind of what I have suspected, but I haven’t lived there and can’t speak from direct experience. Nor do I have much other basis for my suspicions, other than historical information about the conflicts within other so-called homogeneous cultures.

    • #26
    • July 28, 2019, at 11:30 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  27. EtCarter Listener

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    What is that source you’re citing Zafar? It looks like an advocacy piece in a publication I’m unfamiliar with and it’s making a claim that kind of strains credulity to anyone familiar with the US payroll tax system.

    Okay, because I can deny you nothing I will try and find other sources.

    From the horse’s mouth:

    While unauthorized immigrants worked and contributed as much as $13 billion in payroll taxes to the OASDI program in 2010, only about $1 billion in benefit payments during 2010 are attributable to unauthorized work. Thus, we estimate that earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally, and that this effect contributed roughly $12 billion to the cash flow of the program for 2010. We estimate that future years will experience a continuation of this positive impact on the trust funds.

    Now ‘as much as’ does include the possibility of zero, but it seems unlikely.

    EtCarter (View Comment):

    Thank you regardless of what the article yields in advance for being patient with my simplistic question.

    No, thank you for your response EtCarter, and my apologies if my response came across as personally critical or rude. Wrt simplistic, I’m just going off what I can find on the net, so I may be completely wrong (and also possibly simplistic). The federal benefits illegal migrants pay for vs the ones they can access is an interesting question, but so is what is popularly believed about this and why.

    I don’t know which news report you’re referring to, but Politifact addresses a similar point:

    A recent Facebook post laments that senior citizens have to pay for federal health care benefits while undocumented immigrants enjoy the insurance gratis.

    “Why do seniors on Social Security have to pay for Medicare and a supplemental (insurance) and the illegals get it all for free?” asks a post published on the Columbian Post’s Facebook page on Jan. 31.

    The post…had been shared more than 14,000 times by Feb. 26….

    The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services….said….Social Security…determines…eligibility on behalf of Medicare.

    According to [SSA’s] requirements for entitlement, they must be 65 years old, a U.S. resident and either a citizen or a lawful permanent resident…undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible for either Medicare or Social Security.

    “…When undocumented immigrants work with a SS number…they pay into the system but are unable to claim benefits.”

    Re Refugee Cash Assistance:

    The Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) Program [provides cash]…during their first eight months in the U.S.

    A family of 2 (for eg) gets $420/month + medical coverage.

    In case they are working, half their income counts against the grant. (Reduced by 50 cents per dollar earned?)

    In case of unearned income (eg gifts from resettling organisation) RCA is reduced dollar for dollar.

     

    Thanks again, Zafar!

     

    • #27
    • July 28, 2019, at 6:06 PM PDT
    • 1 like