fare them well

tracking what’s changing for welfare, women and children

Illegal immigrants at the top of welfare rolls

If you’re an American without a high-school education. you’re more likely to be on welfare or live in poverty.

Now one study says the same holds true for illegal immigrants.

“Allowing in legal immigrants mainly based on family relationships, and tolerating widespread illegal immigration, certainly has very significant implications for social services, public schools and taxpayer services,” said Steven A. Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, which released the report Nov. 29.

The new report, “Immigrants in the United States 2007: A Profile of America’s Foreign-Born Population, lays out these factors:

Number of Immigrants Living in the U.S. 1995 - 2007

  • The nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007.

  • Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years.

  • Of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives.
  • The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 33 percent, compared to 19 percent for native households.

Both immigrants and illegal aliens are more likely to be poor and to use welfare programs than native-born Americans because they come to the country with lower levels of education, according to a new study based on U.S. Census Bureau data.

The Center has pushed for a crackdown on illegal aliens and a slowdown in legal immigration, and Camarota said his numbers show that the family-based system puts a strain on taxpayer-funded services.

But according to the Times, Angela Kelley, director of the Immigration Law Foundation, said the report didn’t capture the true American experience of immigration.

“Immigrants come to this country; they work hard; if they can get legal status, that improves their chances, they buy homes, they learn English, they intermarry—and it’s been the success story of this nation,” she said.

Advertisements

December 3, 2007 Posted by | Critiques & Critics, News & Numbers, Related Reports, Research | , , , , | Leave a comment

To catch a welfare thief, start with the state

In a Nov. 23 article by The Advocate out of Baton Rouge, LA, the numbers are clear, but the destination is not.

Millions of dollars are given away each year in public assistance programs such as TANF, but many government officials don’t know where they end up.

According to the article, during the past fiscal year, Louisiana spent more than $42 million in two TANF-funded cash assistance programs it administers — the Family Independence Temporary Assistance Program and the Kinship Care Subsidy Program.

But the federal law that created TANF in 1996 requires state agencies to confirm “the state has established and is enforcing standards and procedures to ensure against program fraud and abuse,” the article said.

But policy experts say the broad definition of welfare fraud makes it hard to catch.

  • Elizabeth Lower-Basch, a senior policy analyst for the Center for Law and Social Policy, said in an e-mail that she does not know of any state that puts specific limits on how TANF cash assistance may be spent, so there is technically no such thing as “misuse of funds.”
  • Kenneth Wolfe, spokesman for the national Administration for Children and Families said the federal government ultimately oversees the funding of cash assistance programs, but it is the state and local agencies that are the direct administrators.
  • “No state in the nation monitors what is purchased with the monthly benefits,” Louisiana Department of Social Services spokeswoman Cleo Allen said.

November 26, 2007 Posted by | Busted, Critiques & Critics, Legally Speaking | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A little healthy suffering never hurt, one expert says

Voice for Uninsured

Some economists believe Census data indicates an estimated 47 million Americans have chosen not to have health insurance.

And according to one professor, that’s their prerogative, and a necessary right.

In a Nov. 21 Accuracy in Media column entitled, “Unhealthy Freedoms,” West Virginia University Professor Daniel Shapiro argues that in a world that stresses egalitarian paradigms of a health system ensuring insurance for all, shouldn’t someone have just as much right to choose not to be healthy?

Yes Shapiro’s actually arguing against health care for all.

He’s speaking out in reaction to the latest campaign by the American Medical AssociationVoice for the Uninsured— encouraging voters to think about uninsured Americans when they hit the polls. His latest book, Is the Welfare State Justified?, examines the TANF system.

Instituting a universal healthcare system would undermine citizen’s positive rights by placing their health care choices under bureaucratic government control, argues Shapiro. “All national health insurance [programs] promise a very general right to medically-necessary care….or right to access whatever the system offers. However, judicial remedies when care is denied are non-existent or weak,” in countries with universal healthcare systems, he says.

Shapiro also believes a universal system would benefit the rich and well-connected, many of whom would be able to afford better, more prompt healthcare, the article said.

So what about all-inclusive? Would you feel any less independent to have the government footing your feel-good bills?

November 26, 2007 Posted by | Critiques & Critics, Initiatives, Media Matters, Money Matters | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment