Immigration Watch International (2): MPI issues devastating report on low-income migrants

Monday, November 28, 2022

MPI issues devastating report on low-income migrants

The pro-open borders Migration Policy Institute, here in Washington, has just released a grim and thorough report on low-income migrants which is much stronger in its description of the problem than it is in suggesting possible solutions to it.

It says that low-income migrants (legal and illegal) amount to about one-third of all foreign-born; it defines them as individuals in families making less than 200% of the federal poverty level, an appropriate definition. In 2019, the federal poverty threshold was $16,521 for a family of two and $26,172 for a family of four.

The study is based on U.S. census data, more specifically on the American Community Survey of 2019. It finds that there were a whopping 14,799,000 of them. It uses the euphemism “immigrants” which suggests legal presence, when, as MPI notes later, at least a third of this population is here illegally.

Since the database relates to 2019 the study does not include (or even mention) the millions of illegal aliens that have entered this country in the last couple of years. Hence, if anything, it understates the problems caused by this population.

The study shows that the numerous low-income foreign-born population is remarkably different from the American population generally. Let’s take the question of earnings. Dealing with the “annual earned income of full-time, year-round workers ages 16 and older”. MPI finds that only 8% of the total population made less than $15,000 a year, while 57% of the low-income migrants were in that unhappy category. That is a huge difference.

As MPI does not point out, this means that a strong majority of this population, even back in 2019, did not make, on an annual basis, the equivalent to the totally out-of-date minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. That figure times 52 weeks times 40 hours a week equals $15,080.

MPI’s study also shows that 32% of this migrant population had no health insurance, as opposed to 8% of the total population. Similarly, 41% of the low-income migrant population has less than a high school education, while only 8% of all Americans are in that category.

These statistics strongly suggest both abject poverty and a large utilization of welfare systems (many of MPI’s population live in mixed families of legal and illegal immigrants, mixtures that allow welfare benefits for many in these families.)

https://cis.org/North/MPI-issues-devastating-report-lowincome-migrants

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Monday, November 28, 2022

MPI issues devastating report on low-income migrants

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors