As I've told you numerous times, my response is to the thread... You made statements in the thread. This isn't me badgering you, it's posting in the thread. You aren't forced to respond, right?
Illegal immigrants aren't citizens. Their children are citizens. The children of illegal immigrants are
not illegal immigrants. The parents do not receive substantial federal benefits outside of nursing mothers who decide to sign up for the WIC program. So it is an obviously false claim to argue that the "majority of illegal immigrants are on welfare."
That's one way to look at it, but another, more complex way is to look at benefit utilization across socioeconomic demographics, thus accounting for the means-tested nature of social welfare programs. The CATO Institute has a report that demonstrates exactly this which contradicts the position that you're asserting here. Here's an excerpt from the conclusions of that report:
Poor Immigrants Use Public Benefits at a Lower Rate than Poor Native-Born Citizens
https://www.cato.org/publications/e...mmigrants-use-public-benefits-lower-rate-poor
Comparing Studies
A study by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)found that immigrant-headed households with children used more Medicaid than native-headed households with children and had higher use of food assistance, but lower use of cash assistance.18 The CIS study did not examine the average value of benefits received per recipient.
There are several reasons why our study differs from CIS’s study. First, CIS did not adjust for income, so the percent of immigrants receiving benefits is higher in their study in part because a greater percent of immigrants are low-income and, all else remaining equal, more eligible for benefits. Non-citizens are almost twice as likely to have low incomes compared with natives.19 We focus on low-income adults and children because public benefit programs are means-tested and intended for use by low income people. It is conventional in analyses like these to focus on the low income because it reduces misinterpretations about benefit utilization.
Second, CIS focused on households headed by immigrants while we focus on individuals by immigration status. Our study focuses on individuals because immigrant headed households often include both immigrants and citizens. Since citizen children constitute the bulk of children in immigrant-headed households and are eligible for benefits, CIS’s method of using the immigrant-headed household as the unit of analysis systematically inflates immigrants’ benefit usage. For example, 30 percent of U.S children receiving Medicaid or CHIP benefits are children in immigrant-headed families and 90 percent of those children are citizens.20
Third, CIS focused on immigrants in general, including naturalized citizens, while we also included non-citizen immigrants. Naturalized citizens are accorded the same access to public benefits as native-born citizens and are more assimilated, meaning their opinions of benefit use are more similar to those of native born Americans. Separating non-citizens from naturalized Americans gives a clearer picture of which immigrant groups are actually receiving benefits.
Conclusion
Low-income non-citizen adults and children generally have lower rates of public benefit use than native-born adults or citizen children whose parents are also citizens. Moreover, when low-income non-citizens receive public benefits, the average value of benefits per recipient is almost always lower than for the native-born. For Medicaid, if there are 100 native-born adults, the annual cost of benefits would be about $98,400, while for the same number of non-citizen adults the annual cost would be approximately $57,200. The benefits cost of non-citizens is 42 percent below the cost of the native-born adults. For children, a comparable calculation for 100 non-citizens yields $22,700 in costs, while 100 citizen children of citizen parents cost $67,000 in benefits. The benefits cost of non-citizen children is 66 percent below the cost of benefits for citizen children of citizen parents. The combined effect of lower utilization rates and lower average benefits means that the overall financial cost of providing public benefits to non-citizen immigrants and most naturalized immigrants is lower than for native-born people. Non-citizen immigrants receive fewer government benefits than similarly poor natives.
Actually "we" were, given I quoted your comments about "illegal immigrants" specifically. I said nothing else about your statements with
@-Akronite- ...
I've never made this claim.
Not sure as to the point you're trying to make?
Again: that is false.
You and I both live in California man, you should know that's not true.
Here's an excerpt about this exact issue:
"The way automatic registration works is relatively simple: Eligible citizens are registered to vote when they show up at a Department of Motor Vehicles office to obtain a driver’s license or state ID. The DMV gives the eligible voter a chance to opt out if they prefer not to register. If the person does not opt out, the DMV electronically transfers their voter registration information to the Secretary of State’s office, rather than making election officials enter data by hand from paper registration forms…
“… Automated voter registration is actually a more secure way of doing things,” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla told HuffPost in September. Potential voters “have to demonstrate proof of age, the vast majority of time people are showing a birth certificate or a passport, which also reflects citizenship. That’s arguably more secure than someone checking a box under penalty of perjury,” Padilla said."
Illegal immigrants are not barred from voting? Really?
Dave, can you list off all of the racial/ethnic/gender demographics that
predominantly vote for the GOP?