Diagramme aus meinem Blog, siehe Link für eine vollständige Analyse: https://polimetrics.substack.com/p/double-checking-the-state-departments
Daten aus ACS IPUMS-Mikrodaten der US-Volkszählung. Diagramme erstellt in R und Datawrapper.
Das US-Außenministerium hat kürzlich die gesamte Visumbearbeitung für 75 Länder ausgesetzt, mit der Begründung, dass Einwanderer aus diesen Ländern „inakzeptable Sozialleistungen in Anspruch nehmen“.
Nun, ich habe die Zahlen noch einmal überprüft und weiß nicht, wovon zum Teufel sie reden, weil ihre Tarife mit denen von im Inland geborenen US-Bürgern vergleichbar sind.
Die höchsten Nutzungsraten treten bei Einwanderern aus Ländern auf, in denen es in den USA mehr Flüchtlinge gibt, was Sinn macht.
Der Rest? Ziemlich ähnlich wie die in den USA geborene Bevölkerung. Warum pausieren wir also die Visaerteilung für diese Länder?
Von Public_Finance_Guy
25 Kommentare
To be beautiful (IMO) would also need an indication of parts of the total. Percentage is of course important, but it’s too easy to misunderstand, and removes any way of understanding total spending.
Richest country in world with 30% needing help while all the money goes to the top
Can’t believe that the USA still refers to 14 long-independent countries as „other USSR“. Been like 35 years. Time to update the categories.
The difference is Native US born users of the federal programs we have to (and should support).
The others not so much, we shouldn’t allow immigration unless they are statistically likely to increase economic per capita output and be a net benefit to our social systems.
Look at every other western countries sub (I’m a Canadian native) and they all say the same thing.
It has nothing to do with race – in fact I believe we should be doing way more to support our marginalized communities that we already have natively in the USA. Once they’re 100% then we can worry about others.
I mean from an economic perspective you have to provide welfare to your own citizens, but if you are trying to make resources go as far as possible you don’t want to import people who need welfare if you don’t have to.
I’m an immigrant in a different country and a condition of my visa was „no recourse to public funds“.
What are those abbreviations?
Thousands of Afghani immigrants are people we conscripted into very violent operations in their country for our means. They are people who fought for the US military, but get no citizenship, no education or training, often not even a drivers license. Like most things, it’s the US doing it to others, not the other way around
Yeah now I’d like to see a break down by refugee vs gained citizenship vs US birth and so on, out of sheer curiosity
Outside of legitimate asylum cases we really shouldn’t just be importing people who will provide zero benefit and just eat away at our already pathetic social safety nets.
Having zero standards as to who you let in is just bad immigration policy.
now break the us natives down by ethnicity
You come here you should work. You should not be on our assistance programs. That is called freeloading. Like going over to some one’s home and not leaving and then eating their food and not contributing to the bills or home duties. Just wrong.
Yea, welfare should be for US citizens only
That’s the whole point
Afghans are a total disaster in the UK as well
Not those older Cubans in Florida being extremely right wing, anti-state and yet having this large of a percentage of them using welfare lmao. It’s the equivalent of social conservatives being very anti gay and turning out to be gay.
I knew it was bad here in the US but this is really bad. The US didn’t use to be a welfare heavy state. I’d like to see these percentages over the last 50 years.
Yugoslavia? Central America?
Who wrote this shit?
This is awesome. Is it possible to get this for other countries like BRICS, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc.
It’s normal for countries to not let people in who will go on welfare
When is this supposed to be from? Yugoslavia hasn’t been a country since 1992.
What is US welfare participation rates? We don’t have any payment called „welfare“ so what is included in this?
This is not useful unless you provide details on what this includes.
Your point is what? That Americans are among those that use welfare the most? So what? That’s who the the U.S. welfare supplements are for. Americans.
What is considered welfare in this graph, I see snap has its own picture which is the most well known but what else is included. Does FAFSA count as welfare?
> Well, I double checked the numbers, and I don’t know what the hell they’re talking about because usage their rates are comparable to native-born US citizens.
Why do you think that the bar we used should be the same as native born Americans? Shouldn’t we be seeking people with much lower rates of welfare receipt? Worse: it’s clear even from the graph you provided that some immigrant groups are FAR overrepresented in welfare receipts.
In before lock and deletion. 🔒
Native born Americans should be the top of every list.