May 9, 2013
...In the push to understand(click here) why Heritage would make such assumptions, Dylan Matthews of The Washington Post discovered an important fact about one of the coauthors, Jason Richwine, a “senior policy analyst” at Heritage. Richwine earned his Ph.D. in public policy from Harvard University in 2009, with a dissertation titled “IQ and Immigration Policy.”
...In the push to understand(click here) why Heritage would make such assumptions, Dylan Matthews of The Washington Post discovered an important fact about one of the coauthors, Jason Richwine, a “senior policy analyst” at Heritage. Richwine earned his Ph.D. in public policy from Harvard University in 2009, with a dissertation titled “IQ and Immigration Policy.”
His thesis is straightforward and clearly stated in the abstract: “The statistical construct known as IQ can reliably estimate general mental ability, or intelligence. The average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations.”
He then goes on to prove each point. On the question of IQ, he relies on a broad variety of research, from the American Psychological Association—to underscore the extent to which established measurements have found racial differences in intelligence—to the work of the late J. Philippe Rushton who argued that these differences were genetic in origin. He cites one article that deals with the differences of the “negroid brain.”...
The Heritage Foundation goes on to state Immigration Reform is going to add huge amounts of government spending over 50 years because our new citizens.
...Population-based services. (click here) Police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services, as the National Academy of Sciences determined in its study of the fiscal costs of immigration, generally have to expand as new immigrants enter a community; someone has to bear the cost of that expansion.
I like to think of this as 'sculpted hatred,' because it is. I betcha no household in the USA knew they received the benefits of $31,854 in government SPENDING. This is one of the most atrocious uses of an advanced education.
This is one of the authors of Heritage Foundation papers.
Basically, the well educated are an asset and the poor are not. The study doesn't look to the opportunity of the USA to grow their brain trust and provide upward movement in the USA. I can think of a million different ways of approaching this including the fact upward movement in the USA is becoming increasingly difficult. So, based in the idea that upward movement is no longer a matter of fact in the USA, the study has based their ASSUMPTIONS that the tax base of the USA is fixed, therefore, the new immigrant population will be an ADDITIONAL burden on the wealthy.
A premise can be CREATED any way they want and their paper leans strongly in the direction there will be no advantage to newly realized citizens through immigration reform.
...The high deficits of poorly educated households are important in the amnesty debate because the typical unlawful immigrant has only a 10th-grade education....
Then I have to consider Heritage Foundation is also saying people are genetically deficient in intelligence in comparison of white people. The logical premise of this paper continues, because, where education is a path to upward movement then the USA is really in a ditch with these folks.
Overall, the fiscal deficits or surpluses for lawful immigrant households are the same as or higher than those for U.S.-born households with the same education level. Poorly educated households, whether immigrant or U.S.-born, receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes.
Heritage is qualifying their reasoning in that their measures are not about the unlawful immigrants. I am really getting the feeling as though Heritage wants to continue unskilled job deportation to China and India and wants only to accept immigrants RECRUITED from the upper one percent of the global community.
This is one of the graphs within this study. The real problem with the study by Heritage is there is no realization of the CONTRIBUTIONS of our immigrants. There is no peripheral benefit from the immigrants. I don't know about you but there are huge economies in the USA based in the contributions of immigrants and we can start with food variety and work from there. There is a very good possibility the USA would not have an economy without it's immigrant communities.
The study focuses on DEPENDENCY of people with lower incomes. It is a paper about hatred. It is not tempered with personalizing the immigrant experience and how OVER GENERATIONS the USA has benefited in huge measure by those that have come to this country with more determination at times than natural born citizens. The USA immigrant, here legally or not, latch onto THE PROMISE of the USA and never let go. That is a fact. Every person here from another country will reflect those same exact values. Isn't that what we want of countrymen given a chance to be citizens?
The graph above is about hatred. It is stating there are going to be huge fiscal burdens to the USA, not only by immigrants but by the natural born poor. This graph enforces far more than the cost of "unlawful immigrants," it enforces the idea that all forms of social support to citizens has to stop regardless of citizen status. I mean, you have to know with people like Rubio and Obama in office this immigration legislation is going to happen. But, what doesn't have to happen is the god almighty expense of it.
So, it a warning to the Republicans. The warning is IF YOU VOTE for this immigration reform, you better have removed any fiscal liability it could carry with it including destruction of SSI, Medicare and Medicaid. Throw in Food Stamps, too.
Look, this is exactly what the problem is with the Republican rhetoric. The Republicans are stuck with people that promulgate hatred based in hideous interpretation of what they call facts. It isn't really cherry picking statistics, it is APPLYING a particular methodology to the statistics that dictate fear of the unknown outcomes of the legislation. These studies by Heritage beat the brow of the Republican to the point of hating government itself because it carries such power over the pocketbook.
The reality of immigration in the USA is nothing short of spectacular. Our entire food industry is dependent on the very people immigration reform is about. We owe them a great deal for the very hard work they do. We owe them respect and this study doesn't even approach the word respect.
Immigration has built this country. There are currently men and women in our armed forces waiting for their citizen rights. That is putting trust in a country with their lives. That not only demands reward, but, it demands dedication to improving their status.
Immigration reform is not about dollar and cents or yet another opportunity to assault EARNED BENEFITS in the USA. Immigration reform is about extending the rights to our brothers and sisters they have already earned by being in this country and working in the shadows.
If these costs will be the reality of the USA over the next 50 years, then I strongly suggest Heritage Foundation needs to study ways of improving the financial status of these folks or the 99% might actually become 99.9%. It would be far, far better if the paper authors at Heritage actually conducted valuable work rather than work that supports rhetoric. The question is does Heritage Foundation actually know what VALUABLE work is.
The Heritage Foundation goes on to state Immigration Reform is going to add huge amounts of government spending over 50 years because our new citizens.
...Population-based services. (click here) Police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services, as the National Academy of Sciences determined in its study of the fiscal costs of immigration, generally have to expand as new immigrants enter a community; someone has to bear the cost of that expansion.
The cost of these governmental services is far larger than many people imagine. For example, in 2010, the average U.S. household received $31,584 in government benefits and services in these four categories....
I like to think of this as 'sculpted hatred,' because it is. I betcha no household in the USA knew they received the benefits of $31,854 in government SPENDING. This is one of the most atrocious uses of an advanced education.This is one of the authors of Heritage Foundation papers.
Robert Rector, a leading authority on poverty, welfare programs and immigration in America for three decades, is The Heritage Foundation’s senior research fellow in domestic policy.
Dubbed the "intellectual godfather" of welfare reform (byNational Review Editor Rich Lowry), Rector concentrates on a range of related issues, including the collapse of the marriage culture, the breakdown of the family and other social ills. He is a vocal proponent of marriage education, especially in low-income communities.
Rector played a major role in crafting the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation, which, for the first time, required recipients to work or get job training in exchange for benefits. Since its passage, he has continued to examine not only the mounting costs to the taxpayer (nearly $1 trillion a year) but the role of welfare spending in undermining families.
This is the other author. I am quite confident both are well paid for their writing whether or not it is valid.
Richwine, Heritage’s senior policy analyst in empirical studies, joined the Domestic Policy Studies department in January 2012. He previously was part of the think tank’s Center for Data Analysis, which provides the public policy community with state-of-the-art modeling, database products and quantitative research.
Richwine has published dozens of op-eds in major newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and The Washington Post. His essays also have appeared in political journals such as National Review and The Weekly Standard and in online venues such as The Atlantic and Huffington Post.
Richwine received his doctorate in public policy in 2009 from Harvard University. He holds bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and political science from American University. Before joining Heritage in 2010, he worked at the American Enterprise Institute on a dissertation fellowship.
The study's premise is based in wealth distribution.
...The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive. For example, in 2010, in the whole U.S. population, households with college-educated heads, on average, received $24,839 in government benefits while paying $54,089 in taxes. The average college-educated household thus generated a fiscal surplus of $29,250 that government used to finance benefits for other households....
Basically, the well educated are an asset and the poor are not. The study doesn't look to the opportunity of the USA to grow their brain trust and provide upward movement in the USA. I can think of a million different ways of approaching this including the fact upward movement in the USA is becoming increasingly difficult. So, based in the idea that upward movement is no longer a matter of fact in the USA, the study has based their ASSUMPTIONS that the tax base of the USA is fixed, therefore, the new immigrant population will be an ADDITIONAL burden on the wealthy.
A premise can be CREATED any way they want and their paper leans strongly in the direction there will be no advantage to newly realized citizens through immigration reform.
...The high deficits of poorly educated households are important in the amnesty debate because the typical unlawful immigrant has only a 10th-grade education....
Then I have to consider Heritage Foundation is also saying people are genetically deficient in intelligence in comparison of white people. The logical premise of this paper continues, because, where education is a path to upward movement then the USA is really in a ditch with these folks.
Overall, the fiscal deficits or surpluses for lawful immigrant households are the same as or higher than those for U.S.-born households with the same education level. Poorly educated households, whether immigrant or U.S.-born, receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes.
Heritage is qualifying their reasoning in that their measures are not about the unlawful immigrants. I am really getting the feeling as though Heritage wants to continue unskilled job deportation to China and India and wants only to accept immigrants RECRUITED from the upper one percent of the global community.
The study focuses on DEPENDENCY of people with lower incomes. It is a paper about hatred. It is not tempered with personalizing the immigrant experience and how OVER GENERATIONS the USA has benefited in huge measure by those that have come to this country with more determination at times than natural born citizens. The USA immigrant, here legally or not, latch onto THE PROMISE of the USA and never let go. That is a fact. Every person here from another country will reflect those same exact values. Isn't that what we want of countrymen given a chance to be citizens?
The graph above is about hatred. It is stating there are going to be huge fiscal burdens to the USA, not only by immigrants but by the natural born poor. This graph enforces far more than the cost of "unlawful immigrants," it enforces the idea that all forms of social support to citizens has to stop regardless of citizen status. I mean, you have to know with people like Rubio and Obama in office this immigration legislation is going to happen. But, what doesn't have to happen is the god almighty expense of it.
So, it a warning to the Republicans. The warning is IF YOU VOTE for this immigration reform, you better have removed any fiscal liability it could carry with it including destruction of SSI, Medicare and Medicaid. Throw in Food Stamps, too.
Look, this is exactly what the problem is with the Republican rhetoric. The Republicans are stuck with people that promulgate hatred based in hideous interpretation of what they call facts. It isn't really cherry picking statistics, it is APPLYING a particular methodology to the statistics that dictate fear of the unknown outcomes of the legislation. These studies by Heritage beat the brow of the Republican to the point of hating government itself because it carries such power over the pocketbook.
The reality of immigration in the USA is nothing short of spectacular. Our entire food industry is dependent on the very people immigration reform is about. We owe them a great deal for the very hard work they do. We owe them respect and this study doesn't even approach the word respect.
Immigration has built this country. There are currently men and women in our armed forces waiting for their citizen rights. That is putting trust in a country with their lives. That not only demands reward, but, it demands dedication to improving their status.
Immigration reform is not about dollar and cents or yet another opportunity to assault EARNED BENEFITS in the USA. Immigration reform is about extending the rights to our brothers and sisters they have already earned by being in this country and working in the shadows.
If these costs will be the reality of the USA over the next 50 years, then I strongly suggest Heritage Foundation needs to study ways of improving the financial status of these folks or the 99% might actually become 99.9%. It would be far, far better if the paper authors at Heritage actually conducted valuable work rather than work that supports rhetoric. The question is does Heritage Foundation actually know what VALUABLE work is.
