By George Bennett, The Palm Beach Post, Fla.
Sept. 01– MIAMI — Jeb Bush slammed Donald Trump on Tuesday as a counterfeit conservative with unworkable immigration views and said Hillary Clinton should “chill out” after criticizing his use of the term “anchor babies.”
A day after Republican presidential front runner Trump’s campaign released a video accusing Bush of being soft on illegal immigration, Bush’s campaign fired back with an 82-second web video, an inexpensive alternative to buying TV ad time. The video features clips of Trump through the years praising Clinton, saying single-payer health care has worked in Canada and Scotland, calling for “substantially” higher taxes on upper incomes, describing himself as “very pro-choice” on abortion and saying he identifies as a Democrat on many issues.
Trump was dismissive.
“Yet another weak hit by a candidate with a failing campaign. Will Jeb sink as low in the polls as the others who have gone after me?” Trump said on his Twitter account.
Bush on Tuesday met with students at La Progresiva Presbyterian School, a largely Hispanic private school in Little Havana where a majority of students benefit from the Florida Tax Credit Scholarships that Bush initiated while he was Florida governor from 1999 to 2007.
Speaking to reporters afterward, Bush reiterated the themes in the anti-Trump video.
“While I was campaigning for Republicans in this state and all across the country — conservative, reform-minded candidates — he was supporting Hillary Clinton,” said Bush, referring to contributions Trump made to Clinton’s 2000 and 2006 New York Senate campaigns and her 2008 presidential bid.
“This is not a guy who is a conservative,” Bush said.
In Spanish, Bush accused Trump of personalizing things and calling anyone he disagrees with an “idiot” or “stupid” or lacking in energy or “blah, blah, blah.”
Trump has frequently mocked Bush as a “low-energy” candidate.
Trump’s harsh rhetoric on immigration has propelled him to the top of Republican polls while establishment favorite Bush has floundered. Trump has accusedMexico of sending rapists and other criminals to the U.S., promised a wall between the countries to be built at Mexico’s expense, called for mass deportations of people in the country illegally and challenged the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.
Bush, who favors a path to legal status — but not full citizenship — for the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally, accused Trump of distorting his position on immigration.
“If he was interested in actually knowing my views he could read the book (Bush’s 2013 book “Immigration Wars”) and he would know that I’m for border security and in a practical way that won’t cost hundreds of billions of dollars like what he’s proposed,” Bush told reporters.
Bush also took heat from Clinton last month after he used the term “anchor babies” to describe children born in the U.S. to parents who are not citizens.
“I’m for birthright citizenship … it’s embedded in the 14th amendment. I don’t think we’re going to round up 11 million people and put them in camps to deport them, breaking up families. I’m for a rational approach to immigration. My record is clear,” Bush said.
Bush noted that his wife was born in Mexico and he is a longtime bilingual resident of Miami’s cultural melting pot.
“Really, for Hillary Clinton to lecture me about this, given my personal experience, the fact that I’ve lived in this beautiful community, that is a community of immigrants, the fact that I’m married to a spectacular woman that I’ve been married to for 41 years. This is like, ‘Chill out, man.’ Let’s just take a deep breath and recognize that I’ve had a consistent view on these subjects,” Bush said.
___
(c)2015 The Palm Beach Post (West Palm Beach, Fla.)
Visit The Palm Beach Post (West Palm Beach, Fla.) at www.palmbeachpost.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
my family and I will Not vote at all if bush is the candidate!
Sure, let’s all just chill out of the invasion of our country. I’m sick and damn tired of these political hacks telling us what we need to embrace.
Suck it Mr. Bush.
The US is NOT a melting pot- it’s segregated group of different cultures who do not speak the same language or have the same values. NO MORE BUSHES. NO amnesty. DEPORT THEM ALL. EVERY LAST ONE. And amend the 14th amendment so it clarifies that it was not intended for poor, uneducated mexican and chinese women to drop kids in this country and be allowed to bring in their entire poor uneducated family in with them.
ENOUGH. GO AWAY, BUSH!!!!!
Thanks for sharing this article. I agree wholeheartedly with Bush. We need to reform immigration laws and make it easier for people to enter the country legally, that way they wont enter illegally and ICE will have greater resources to pursue those who truly are a threat to the United States.
I don’t agree with Bush on building a wall. We need to create policies that incentivize legal immigration and are reflective of the time period we live in. Globalization is real and the movement of people is inevitable. We can either adapt and flourish, or bicker and suffer the consequences.
Exactly, I think he should move to Mexico and run for president there. And he can take the troll he’s married to with him.
No, we need a moratorium on all immigration, especially from the Third World. We already have enough of our own poverty, we don’t need to keep importing more of it every year. And Globalization is nothing more than the corporate take over of the planet. Wake up from Dreamland.
Are you kidding me, they are bringing in millions a year without even vetting them. Yes, America is a melting pot, back before these community organizers got into office, they would let some in, then stop for a while so they could help the new ones assimilate into the culture.
Multiculturalism DOES NOT work, all you get is a bunch of small communities who vote against abstract things like,,,,, UMMMM,,,,, the CONSTITUTION.
Where do you think all this rhetoric against our founding fathers, constitution, religious beliefs and our core culture is coming from?!?
Most of it is coming from people who immigrated here, both legally and illegally who do NOT understand our history.
People like you are causing much of this Anti-American rhetoric. In your little world, we can bring in people who can’t even write in their own language let alone ours, they are bringing in diseases we eradicated years ago and now are sprouting up again all over the country. The illegal Mexican’s are shipping billions of our dollars back home, their biggest industry is from their immigrants, both legal and illegal shipping OUR money back home. AND – Don’t even get me started on the Welfare fraud of millions of dollars a year from these immigrants,,,, yes, both legal and illegal.
Anybody who says this “Type” of immigration without assimilation is good for our country is nothing but a Communist / Socialist / Fascist, pushing for the destruction of this ONCE GREAT NATION.
Learn History, because unless you learn it you will NEVER understand this country.
Maybe, instead of those of us citizens who are fed up with the ILLEGAL ALIEN invasion of our great country chilling out, maybe Bush should clue in. The ALIEN invasion is draining this country. Throw in the murders, rapes and the long list of crimes committed by ILLEGAL ALIENS for good measure no wonder actual American citizens support someone thatspeaks against the invasion. And they are anything but cheap labor. When you look at what it costs American citizens to pick up the tab for all the “benefits” ILLEGAL ALIENS receive it turns out it is very expensive subsidized labor. Bush is just another establishment politician wanting to make nice and not rock the boat so he can be relevant and have some power. Real Americans are sick and tired of being put in the back of the line behind every ILLEGAL, Muslim, black criminal and any other that only wants a hand out or hates this country.
We are a SOVEREIGN NATION and have the right to CONTROL the flow of the poor, the uneducated, the criminal, and the ILLEGAL.
WE HAVE THAT RIGHT. We should NOT make it easier for the world’s impoverished illiterate criminals to come here to live off of American taxpayers. We are AMERICA, NOT THE RED CROSS. We have rights too.
Thanks for the response. I will try and respond to your comments in the order that they appear
First the assimilation issue: I think it is a blanket statement to say that immigrants do not try and assimilate. I will agree that there are some who do not. However I would actually put forward that the majority do. Also if you have ever lived in a foreign country yourself you may notice that it is not as easy as it would seem to assimilate from day one. Immigrants, like all others are humans, and make mistakes, they may not speak perfect English the day they come to America but I believe that a majority do try. Also research suggests that assimilation increases through generations. The further down the line, the less association with your familial line’s country of origin.
Next, I don’t quite follow on your constitution reference. I am not sure what you mean by this. Also I am not sure I understand the rhetoric against our founding father’s?
I don’t believe I am anti-American either or causing anti-American rhetoric. In fact it is the fact that I am American that I have my views on immigration. This country has afforded me great opportunities that I have tried to take advantage of, and I want all to be able to have similar opportunities. I believe in human potential, and just because people cannot read or write does not mean that they possess no value or potential. Also I would like to know what percentage of the people who come to the US this actually is. In response to people shipping money back, I have to agree that it is happening, and have no response, something you have impressed upon me to think about. Welfare fraud: I would like to know the true numbers here also, I believe they may be a little inflated, however if it is a problem I think that it is something that could be addressed and fixed.
With regards to immigration without assimilation, I believe in assimilation, just maybe not to the degree you do. Also elaborate on this “type” of immigration. Furthermore I think it is quite extreme to then label “Anybody who says this “Type” of immigration without assimilation is good for our country is nothing but a Communist / Socialist / Fascist.” I am sure you know the difference between the three ideologies, and I am sure that you know that Fascism lies completely on the other side of the political spectrum of communism and socialism. I am also sure that you know that with this juxtaposition of ideology it would be difficult for someone of different ideas to agree on issues. But for the sake of conversation I will just come out and say that I support none of those ideologies, and will further state that my ideas on immigration also come from roots of capitalism. Capitalism encourages competition, and less government intervention into market workings. I believe that the most qualified person for a job based on merit should get it, regardless of the geographical location of his birth. If we are worried about immigrants stealing our jobs maybe we should get better at them.
With regards to me learning history, I will tell you about the history I know. This is not the first time in the United States that loud members of the populace, that may or may not represent the majority, have been concerned about an invasion of immigrants. In the 1800’s there were a lot of Americans worried about the incoming Irish. As I recall nothing extremely adverse occurred as a result of that migration. In the early 1900’s citizens were then concerned about the incoming Chinese (which helped build the railroad by the way). Again the government was not overthrown and we are not speaking Chinese today. Similar to those times, Latin Americans are entering the U.S. at a greater proportion then the rest of the world population. So as you suggest, with history as my teacher I guess I will predict that a similar outcome will follow. America will still be America, and no overly adverse consequences will materialize.
So let’s ask a simple question: what’s the difference between the overwhelming migration that we’re seeing as we speak, and an invasion by a foreign country or foreign peoples?
At some point, the invading forces overwhelm the resident population. This is how countries are taken over by other countries. Stats show that this country will be primarily “hispanic” in our lifetimes. That’s not just through deaths and births, but through the constant onslaught of “hispanics” in overwhelming numbers.
Everyone talks about how Europeans overran native Americans and took over their land and destroyed their culture and their way of life. If the Indians had been able to repel the European invaders, this would be a very different place right now with, perhaps, the overwhelming population being Cherokee or Sioux. But it’s NOT because they were overwhelmed by numbers and force from an invading country of men who didn’t speak their language or respect their ‘nation’. They lost. Europeans won. Is this not the exact same situation? Are we not sitting back and hoping it all works out in the end while we’re being overrun by uninvited “guests” who will – very soon – overwhelm us by sheer numbers? Were those Indians who stood up and said “Hey- we need to put up a fight or we’re going to end up losing everything” called xenophobes and racists and told that this is how life is and it would all work out just fine?????
Don’t we have the right to defend our way of life like today’s native American’s wish their ancestors had done? This is NO DIFFERENT.
Finally, someone with a little common sense. Thank you for your comment.
Obviously, you have put a lot of thought into your comment, but you forget one important point. The immigrants you cite enter the U.S. legally, as there was not such thing as an “illegal immigrant” at the time. Legal immigrants are welcome here, but those that violate our laws should not be rewarded for successfully sneaking across our borders undetected or over staying their visas. It is apparent that some people just can not comprehend “illegal”, and want to ignore the fact that these illegal immigrants violated our immigration laws. I guess to these people, our laws do not mean much, unless they LIKE those laws.
Thanks for the response. I am not sure if immigration was legal back then or not. What remained the same was the fact the members of the American populace believed that the immigration into the United States by these groups would somehow compromise the integrity of the nation, and those notions never materialized.
Now as I am sure that you know certain immigrants who are here illegally have only violated civil laws in the United States. The remedy for civil infractions is a monetary one. So I would say that if those who have broken only civil laws pay a fee and then be granted some sort of legal status. I am ok with them never being able to attain citizenship, but I think they should be able to achieve legal status.
And yes you are right, I don’t like immigration laws. I think they are completely arcane and antiquated. I would very much like to see them changed to allow for greater legal migration, and better reflect the reality of immigration demands of the 21st century. However I believe in the enforcement of laws because we are a nation of laws. As an example I will state that I have heard many people are frustrated with Obamacare, which is a law. They want it repealed and that is fine, but the law is still enforced. Similarly I am disappointed and frustrated with the law, but I still believe it should be enforced.
First I would like to see the source that leads you to the conclusion that the country will be primarily hispanic in our lifetime, and how they arrived at that conclusion.
Next, I would say that your comparison is fundamentally and fatally flawed in a number of ways. When the Europeans came and destroyed the indigenous populations, first they did so under the auspices of imperialism. This means that they operated in concert with the motives and direction of an outside sovereign, and with the encouragement and wealth of that sovereign. Now the analysis, are immigrants coming in under the auspices of imperialism, under the guidance of an organized sovereign? This is not happening.
Next the methods of destroying the indigenous population included ruthless murdering, pillaging, armies, and superior and advanced weaponry. Now the analysis, are immigrants today coming and murdering, pillaging and sending in soldiers as part of an army with inferior and advanced weapons to wipe out the population? Again the answer is no.
Another distinct difference is that the generations of the European invaders maintained their cultures and customs, whereas the deeper generationally you go with immigrants, the greater the ties to America and the less the ties to the country of their forefathers.
I am sorry but as I mentioned I believe your argument is a feeble attempt to compare early colonialism and imperialism to today’s immigration system and there are just no similarities.
Jeb The Name Stands For ( “Just eternal Bullshit “.)
Nonsense, Jesse. We don’t need to reform anything. We simply have to follow the laws that exist. And we need E-Verify instituted nationally and enforced by the Federal government. And remember, it’s always about borders, language, and culture if we’re going to be a sovereign nation.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that the laws on the books for immigration are arcane and antiquated. I would like to see them reformed. The reason that individuals come illegally is because the wait time can last decades to come legally, or there is no opportunity at all to come. Furthermore with the last amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1996, bars were put in place that have created perverse incentives. It has just created the incentive for immigrants to stay in the US so as not to trigger the bars and in turn they bring their families with them.
Also look at our worker visa programs. A person with a graduate degree could hire someone outside of the US to come here to work for him. With the current cap system on work visa’s only 50% of those hired foreign employees will obtain visa’s. In my opinion that is not good for our country, and seems contrary to capitalism.
However until that occurs I agree that the laws need to be enforced, even though I do not like them. The current administration is hamstrung by budget constraints, and his executive actions are stuck in the courts. Prosecutorial discretion is used with other laws, and we will see how the fifth circuit rules.
I agree with you and e-verify. So are you willing to punish not only immigrants, but employers who hire undocumented workers?
I also agree with your sovereignty argument, though my implementation is different. I think you can regulate immigration much more efficiently through policy than arbitrarily building a large wall. I believe policy would be much cost effective also. I think it naive to believe that a mere construction of a wall will stop illegal immigration. How far out should it be built into the Pacific and Gulf of Mexico?
Lastly, I believe I addressed your language and culture in an earlier post, but I will say it again here in case you missed it. Language and culture are generational. I will agree that assimilation is difficult for first generation immigrants and if you have lived in a foreign country for any extended period of time, especially one in which there is a different language you will quickly understand why. However, second and third generations have a much easier time and rate of assimilation to the US, and greater detachment from the countries of their forefathers.
Moratorium on immigration? So you are saying that spouses, family member of US Citizens, workers, asylees, and all others who qualify need to be immediately stopped? I am sorry that you feel that all immigrants who come to the United States are void of social and economic value. That is not what I see. Many of the immigrants I know are producers in this country and make it a better place. I will agree with you that there are immigrants who come with nothing and are in poverty, but our country is one of opportunity, and many immigrants take advantage of that opportunity and create better lives for themselves. Lucky you that you were birth happened in a geographical location, nothing more, where you were automatically endowed with those opportunities.
The only thing I see them taking advantage of is our welfare system. If their own countries had welfare they wouldn’t leave in the first place. Get a clue!
I totally agree! We are being swamped by poverty and most of these Third World breeders hate our culture and want to replace it with their own.
What? So we can be over run the way Europe is being over run this very moment?
You sound like a modern-day Progressive, meaning one who simply wants to “progress” beyond the Constitution because you think it’s old and no longer applicable to the nation. Our immigration laws are designed to best serve the needs and interests of the American people, not anybody else. Period, as Obama is fond of saying when he wants us to accept another lie. The immigration laws on the books are not enforced because the democrats see the influx of illegal aliens as a potential voting block that will tip elections to them in perpetuity. Surely, you’re not too blind to recognize that, are you?
Well that depends on your interpretation of the constitution. I will admit that I am a broad constructionist. Prosecutorial discretion has been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional. Also I am a Republican not a Democrat.
I am sorry that you are scared for Europe, however I think our immigration challenges are different than those of Europe. And I do not believe we are being “over run.”
I highly disagree with you in this point, and I cannot stress the word word highly enough. They are taking advantage of opportunity not welfare, because to get welfare you need to be a citizen, which they obviously are not.
Just why are you on this website? Maybe, you should get on LA RAZA’s website, then you can vent with your Mexican buddies.
Because I like to hear the other side. However you are right I should go to La Raza, the posts and conversations there are much more thought out and if you disagree with them they do not immediately label you as a communist, socialist, fascist, or someone who doesn’t understand the constitution. I just though that me being a Republican I could find some logical explanation to why other Republican minded individuals are worried that immigration is a bad thing, instead of just always claiming, “they steal our jobs, they are all on welfare,” and all of the other staple generalizations. If the people here dont like having their beliefs and ideas challenged maybe you are right, I shouldnt be here doing that.
“Prosecutorial discretion” in terms of what? You sound like an Obama democrat to me. He took an oath to defend the Constitution of the U.S., but was later quoted in an interview as saying he thought it went too far in terms of what the government can’t do TO you, and not far enough in what it must do FOR you. He was talking specifically about the Bill of Rights, meaning he doesn’t appreciate the concept of freedom that our Framers recognized in those rights. Rather, in his mind, the Government should be self-determining in deciding who gets what freebies and which rights the people are entitled to. That lack of understanding or appreciation is precisely why this nation is in the pickle it’s in.
Ok, well I did not vote for Obama, and I am a Republican. Now to prosecutorial discretion, the Supreme Court has ruled it Constitutional. Read Heckler v. Chaney from 1985. Basically agencies in the government may balance costs with their capacity to enforce. That is the methodology employed by the Obama administration with regards to immigration. When people speed they are not always pulled over, but they break the law, and they pose a risk to other drivers on the road. Why are they not all ticketed? Prosecutorial discretion. Agencies do not have the resources to fully enforce the law, and so they prioritize enforcement. This is the exact same principal employed in the Obama administrations enforcement of immigration.
Nonsense. Obama didn’t follow prosecutorial discretion in terms of immigration. He simply gave orders to his Agency heads not to enforce certain regulations or he issued Executive Orders that allowed tens of thousands of illegals to flow into the U.S. And all toward the purpose of creating a demographic voting block that would win elections in perpetuity. If you’re a Republican, you’re a RINO! And that’s the name of that tune. Cheers
It is hard for me to believe that you fully grasp and understand what the executive actions were and their applications. Obama did actually follow prosecutorial discretion. He prioritized illegal immigrants by certain criteria and balanced that with his budget to enforce according to the constitutional norms the Supreme Court laid out in Heckler v. Chaney. And just an FYI there were no executive orders, Jeh Johnson is actually the one who adopted the policies and President Obama approved them.
Also if you had read the memo’s you would know that new illegal immigrants entering the U.S. after the announcement in November were “top priorities,” and in application those individuals have not been let in and deported when found, that is a section of the executive action that is not enjoined int the court and has been rigorously enforced, so to think that Obama “allowed” for thousands of illegal immigrants to “flow” into the U.S. is very misguided.
If you have not read the memo’s I would highly encourage you to do so. And thanks for calling me a RINO, I was unaware what it stood for and had to look it up. I guess I dont have a party because I am too conservative for Democrats.
You are right that, in the late 1800 and early 1900, there was a fear among some that immigrants would somehow compromise the integrity of the nation. But, there was a difference, as the immigrants at that time came here legally and WANTED to become Americans. The illegal immigrants of today, especially Hispanics, and I include Latinos, appear to NOT hold the same desire to become Americans, but rather want to establish THEIR culture in the U.S.. Look at LA which is now over 50% Hispanic and that percentage is growing. I have head liberals criticize conservatives for NOT voting in their best interests. What do think that Hispanics will do when they are a VERY large voting group? They will vote for what is in THEIR best interest, not what is best for America. Hispanics already outnumber blacks, and it is projected that by 2024, the majority of out population will be Hispanic. The politicians are already concerned by the Hispanic “voting block”, but think what would happen if and when Hispanics hold the majority in the U.S.. The sad thing is that we are encouraging this increase in the Hispanic population through sanctuary cities, anchor babies, executive orders, and Obama’s catch and release” policy.
And it’s hard for me to believe that you fully grasp the concept of “prosecutorial discretion.” Such an action is indicated only in the case of individual cases, not for whole groups of people. If you’re “conservative” then I’m a Unicorn in a rainbow dress. And that ain’t gonna happen!
Please read this, and then explain to me how there is not a constitutional exercise of prosecutorial discretion. http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_prosecutorial_discretion.pdf
Also I would like to see your picture, I have never seen in a Unicorn in a rainbow dress, because I am definitely a Republican!
Thank you for your comments, I really appreciate your viewpoint, though I am compelled to disagree. I have been to Mexico, and I have been to LA recently and LA feels like America not Mexico. With the exception of Republican view of immigration the majority of Hispanics fall ideologically in the conservative camp. Of course democrats are exploiting that voting block. That is why I do not understand why Republicans don’t catch up with the times. I am not proposing amnesty or opening the borders all the way. I am merely asking that they soften their rigid position just a little. Please give me evidence that Hispanics will be the majority in the foreseeable future, yes there has been an increased number in the US, but I have a hard time believing they will be the majority of America. And I have a harder time believing that their intentions are to overrun the United States. The majority that I know and read about want to be Americans and have American ideals. But that desire is only crushed by propaganda that they are not wanted.
Lastly, I think my immigration example is salient to today’s situation. While I will agree with you that the Irish and the Chinese came legally, because there were no affirmative laws back then, I must disagree with you about the difference of their intentions. Furthermore, the principle is the same in all periods and examples being that immigrants are fleeing persecution in their home countries, coming to the US in search of a better life and opportunity.
You were right to question my comment about Hispanics becoming the majority, as I was incorrect. My comments were based on memory, and at my age, I guess that’s not very smart.I looked up the article published in Dec, 2012 again, and this is what it said:
There are 197.8 million non-Hispanic whites in the United States now, and that number is slated to peak around 200 million by 2024. The only race expected to decrease in population by 2060 is the non-Hispanic white population, falling nearly 20 million from 2024 to 2060 and making up 43 percent of the nation’s total population by 2060.
The projections show a slower growing, older, more diverse nation a half century from now. According to the report (Census Bureau projections), by the year 2043 the United States is expected to be a majority-minority nation. Within the next 50 years, the Hispanic population is expected to more than double, meaning nearly one in three U.S. residents would be Hispanic.
“Moving forward, the U.S. will become the first major post-industrial society in the world where minorities will be the majority”.
I hope this clarifies my incorrect comments.
I do not believe that the intent of Hispanics is to “overrun” or “take over” the U.S., as I believe that their intent is to make their presence, as a group, known and felt. You see this every day when you are told to “dial one for English and two for Spanish. Or, the signs in stores in both English AND Spanish. Or, the instructions on products in both English AND Spanish.
The news I see showing HS students in CA flying our flag upside down or removing the American flag and replacing it with the Mexican flag gives me cause for concern. Or, the HS student who was told to take off his t-shirt with the American flag on the front, because it might cause trouble during Cinco de Mayo. Do they want to be Americans? Based upon their actions, I say NO, as it appears that they want to bring Mexico to the U.S. If this is their attitude now, what will the teach their children?
From all that I read and see, it appears that the main difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that the Democrats want a “path” to citizenship and the Republicans do not agree. The only way the Republicans could soften their position is to agree with the Democrats, who will not compromise, and grant illegals citizenship or at least “legal status”. There is not much difference between the two, as the end result is they can stay “legally” in the U.S..
However, the Democrats are currently doing everything possible to ensure that illegal immigrants can stay in the U.S. – sanctuary cities, executive orders by the President, Obama’s “catch and release” policy, releasing illegal immigrants convicted of crimes back into society, giving them driver’s licenses and work permits, and suing AZ for trying to enforce immigration laws. All of these actions just serve to encourage more illegals to try and enter the U.S.. To top it off, a recent report showed the 51% of immigrants, both legal and illegal, are using at least one welfare program. That is 21% higher that native-born citizens. Yes, they are getting that better life they are looking for, but at OUR expense. Is that what we really want to continue?
I do not agree that the Hispanics from Mexico or Central America come to the U.S. are fleeing persecution, as if that were the case, they would be classified as “refugees”, not “illegal immigrants” and subject to different laws and regulations. But, as you say, they come here in search of a better life and opportunity – which is NOT their right, unless they come here legally. If caught, illegals should be returned to their home country.
Well said.
I appreciate you through analysis; however, I would add that the “invasion” by Europeans and the “invasion” of Hispanics/Latinos is different in one way only. That difference is that the “war” fought between Europeans and native Americans was fought with guns and bow and arrows; whereas, the “war” against this Hispanic “invasion” is being fought by legal means. By all indications, the Democrats and illegal immigrants are winning, just like the Europeans won.
There is no question that the Hispanic population is growing at a larger rate than any other nationality or race in the U.S.. And given time, based on the reproduction rates of Hispanics and the decline of non-Hispanic whites, eventually Hispanics will out number other races in the U.S.. It is simple math.
And, I disagree with you.
A new study shows 51 percent of immigrant households in the United States used at least one welfare program, 21 percent higher than native-born citizens.
After looking at the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the report found immigrants — both documented and undocumented — used a disproportionate amount of the nearly half a trillion-dollar welfare budget for the 2012 fiscal year. While Medicaid was the most popular, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Women Infants and Children food program, subsidized school lunches, food stamps and housing subsidies were also largely utilized.
Even with the exclusion of Medicaid, 44 percent of immigrants use other major supplemental programs, 19 percent more than natural-born citizens.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/02/51-percent-of-immigrants-use-welfare-programs/#ixzz3koI8bDMl
By the way, I do enjoy reading your comments, as it is always good to hear what other people think. And, by my comments, I, in not way, am not trying to imply that you are wrong and I am right, just stating my opinion. It may surprise you, but I DO make mistakes. Once, in 1974, I admitted to a mistake that I didn’t make. Now, that WAS a mistake.
Interesting, thanks. I appreciate the thought out conversation that you have induced. Also thanks of the civility in the discussion. I am curious to see what you think of this article. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/02/08/52377/immigrants-are-makers-not-takers/
Again thanks.
Thank you for sending the link to the article, as it was quite interesting. It is very biased, but I understand why, as the authors were trying to make a case for legalizing illegal immigrants, and that it OK.
I start to question data, when the author uses comments like, “Playing to ignorant prejudice…”, as comments like this limits objectivity. Some comments:
The authors cite the financial contributions that illegals would contribute to tax revenue, social security, etc,. which is based on a false assumption that ALL of these people would HAVE jobs, if they were legalized. We know this to be an inaccurate assumption.
It is important to note that immigrants—even legal immigrants—are barred from most social services, meaning that they pay to support benefits they cannot receive. Again, this is not accurate.
“Immigrants are a key driver of keeping the Social Security Trust Fund solvent.” Again, based on a false assumption that “…you pay into the system over your lifetime and then take from it once you retire. Illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. will NOT pay into SS during their lifetime, as I have done since I received my first W-2 at age 14. Social Security is in trouble today, and I can not see adding more people to the system who pay into SS and increasing more pay outs can solve the SS problems. It is a wash, and only benefits the illegals who were “legalized”
‘Instead of comparing all household users of welfare benefits, it limits its analysis to families with children.” “If you are going to compare households, (and income levels) you must compare all households.” The study that cited 51% of immigrant households used at least one form of welfare DID include ALL households. The authors reject the study by the Center for Immigration Studies because they say it only considered families with children, which is not true. But, I understand their attempt to “water down” the figures, by saying that a family of two making $120,000 a years should be included with a family of six making $25,000 a year. Which family is most likely to NOT have to rely on welfare?
The bottom line: Certain people can rationalize all they want to about making illegals “legal”, but the fact remains that illegals should not be here in the first place. To reward them with “legalization” only serves to encourage MORE illegals to enter the U.S.. and compounds the immigration problem.