The sad reality of illegal immigration

Despite biased reporting by the mainstream media and relentless opposition by the radical left, President Trump successfully stopped all the migrant caravans from entering the United States. He has been adamant maintaining that "a country without borders is no country at all".

President Trump stopped the caravan by sending troops to the border and additional law enforcement officers, hardening the border barrier, and allowing border agents to use whatever measures were necessary to protect their own safety and carry out the mission they were given.

In addition, President Trump has asked Congress to close America's asylum loophole which allows illegal immigrants to take advantage of the system.

Legal immigration is good for this country, as well as for many others, but illegal massive and uncontrolled immigration is a real danger and causes serious imbalances and social insecurity.

A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has found that 63% of households headed by non-citizens are using at least one welfare program, compared to just 35% of native-headed households. The CIS report also found that 45% of non-citizen households use food assistance programs and 50% use medicaid, both rates are more than double those of native households.

The report finds that while illegal immigrants are barred from receiving federal welfare benefits, many get around this by living in a state that provides them taxpayer funded welfare or by having a child who is a US citizen due to America’s birthright citizenship policy.

Anyone who wishes to settle in a legitimate way in another country other than his own has an obligation to adapt to its culture and strictly obey its laws. Their cultural contribution is good when it is not intended to supplant but to enrich the environment where the immigrant chose to settle. In addition, to be welcomed an immigrant must love as his own the country that receives him or her and thank their citizens for the opportunities they offer to the newcomer. They are not welcome when seeking to take advantage of their generosity to live as a parasite of the society that received him or her with open arms.

On the other hand, it is not fair to make a comparison between these massive caravans of immigrants, clearly organized to openly challenge the laws of the country where they want to settle, with the exodus caused by the tragic humanitarian circumstances of a tyranny such as the one in Venezuela or with the horrors of a bloody war such as the one taking place in Syria. In one of these countries the normal supply of food and medicines has collapsed and people are dying of hunger or the lack of medical care, and inflation is one of the most devastating of world history. On the other a frightening war cause and has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. In both these cases there are appalling humanitarian crisis which cannot be compared with the situation experienced by migrants from the caravans that try to invade by force the United States.

Just a quick correction: The study from CIS doesn't count "immigrants using welfare" it counts households headed by non-citizens who "used a welfare program at least once" during the year of the study. If an immigrant is married to an american native citizen that uses medicaid, the study will count the household as an "immigrant household" even though the person using welfare is not an immigrant.

Furthermore, the Center for Immigration Studies has been widely criticized by many scholar for using poor methodology designed to support the stated goal of the organization, which is reducing immigration to the US, and its founder has been accused of being racially motivated and advocating for eugenics.

I'd take whatever they say with a grain (or a truckload) of salt.

I certainly appreciate the correction regarding statistics that might be biased. Unfortunately, we are constantly overwhelmed by information that might be false or willingly hide part of the truth, which obliges us to be extremely careful when we use it to illustrate an opinion or analysis such as the one on my original post.

On the other hand, it is necessary to see the two sides of the coin in each of our claims. I have seen and listened to Mark Krikorian on occasional TV interviews and also read a note he published in the Washington Post. Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

The CIS describes itself as a non-profit research organization “that favors far lower immigration numbers and produces research to further those views.” And according to its website, the CIS is "the nation's only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States."

My impression is that Krikorian is a person with radical ideas, many of which I do not share, but expressing them in non sectarian nor racist form. Instead, he appears to be coherent with views that we can disagree with in a free and democratic environment without radicalizing ourselves.

As far as I know, the Center for Immigration Studies, headed by Krikorian, churns out research and blog posts about proposed legislation, court decisions and arrest data and the costs of illegal immigration borne by the government. CIS uses data to argue for low levels of immigration. For example, it mapped the impact of immigration on public schools and said it "raises profound questions about assimilation."

However, there is a high probability of bias in their analysis. A case in point is their argument that giving birth on U.S. soil gives immigrants access to welfare and other social benefits, and that gives rise to "birth tourism". The fact is that citizen children cannot sponsor their parents for citizenship until the young person turns 21. True that those children may get social benefits and welfare, but not their undocumented parents. That means that we are facing here a half truth.

Therefore, we should dig further to find other sources that refute or confirm CIS statistics to be fair in our analysis.

After some research among diverse sources, these are my findings on this topic:

According to a report published earlier this year by Forbes, health care cost for undocumented immigrants is close to 19 billions a year, not including benefits they may get under Medicaid for emergency services. And the States of California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington, plus the District of Columbia, grant full coverage to all children regardless of immigration status. Furthermore, 26 States make undocumented immigrants eligible for state-funded benefit programs.

On the other hand, according to the National Immigration Forum, legal immigrants use federal public benefit programs at lower rates than U.S.-born citizens, a point in favor of legal immigration.

Further research shows that the food stamps program, known since 2008 as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), is not open to undocumented immigrants, but they can collect legally SNAP benefits, according to an AP report published in June 2017 because «many families include a mix of non-legal residents and legal ones, such as children who have citizenship because they were born in the U.S. In those cases, it is often an adult who is not a legal resident who submits the application.»

Nevertheless, no matter what the statistics are saying, nothing illegal is good for any country because it disrupts the fabric of law and order. Immigrants are welcome if they arrive legally. If they didn't, circumstances may mitigate the weight of the law to solve their situation and legalize their status. Indeed, we must be compassionate and, above all, respect their basic human rights.

What cannot be justified under any circumstances is for a prospective immigrant to demand privileges and rights they do not have. All immigrants must apply for admission to any country with humility and decorum. No country has an obligation to receive them for permanent settlement. In any case, immigrants must demonstrate their interest in merging with the culture and society of the country receiving them, and show their determination to lend their capacity and efforts for the good of the country where they are hoping to settle.