Thursday, January 25, 2018
"In short, a place where people had once lived without fear and treated one another with respect and friendliness had become charged with tension, dread, and bigotry—not anti-Muslim bigotry, mind you, but anti-Norwegian bigotry."
Reminds me of the anti-American bigotry we experience from some of our immigrants, and definitely from our own left-wingers, born and raised here.
"August  marked the beginning of a new school year. On September 28, VG, a Norwegian newspaper, reported that since the start of the term, so many violent episodes had taken place at the high school in Stovner—one involving an ax and a crowbar—that the principal, Terje Wold, said that he could no longer guarantee the safety of teachers and students. In response, the nation’s acting minister of education, Henrik Asheim, called an emergency meeting; police officers were soon posted at the school on a daily basis. VG noted that Stovner was hardly alone: violence in other schools in Groruddalen had also intensified in recent years, leading to the development of what in Norwegian is called an ukultur, literally, an “un-culture”—marked by a lack of culture—violent, anarchic, and savage.
And so it goes. Muslims keep pouring into Groruddalen, and ethnic Norwegians keep leaving. . ."
Thursday, December 15, 2016
Cultural adjustments strain the family
Monday, June 27, 2016
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429215/anti-westernism-hypocrisy
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Success of black immigrants in the USA
Monday, February 29, 2016
Innovation in the U.S. is driven by immigrants
"First-generation immigrants make up 13 percent of the U.S. population and 16.5 percent
of the U.S. workforce, but 35.5 percent of innovators.71 Highly educated immigrants play a
significant role in bolstering the U.S. innovation ecosystem. These findings help
demonstrate that the U.S. economy, which faces a serious skills gap in STEM fields, has an
outsized demand for foreign talent.72." p. 29
Our immigration laws haven't failed--they've been ignored
Friday, November 20, 2015
What country is Obama living in?
In five years, the U.S. has taken in 53 Christians from that war torn area, and thousands of Muslims. But it is the Christians facing genocide. Meanwhile Jordan and Turkey are buying cheap oil from ISIS, and Obama glad hands them.
This man has no heart; only political goals masquerading as values and ethics, and I might add, pretending to care. And according to the Constitution, he has one job—to keep the country safe. If he didn’t like the job description, why did he run?
Wednesday, September 02, 2015
More Than Half of Immigrants on Public Assistance
Welfare Use by Immigrant and Native Households
•Welfare use is high for both new arrivals and well-established immigrants. Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48 percent access welfare.
•No single program explains immigrants' higher overall welfare use. For example, not counting subsidized school lunch, welfare use is still 46 percent for immigrants and 28 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 44 percent for immigrants and 26 percent for natives.
•Immigrant households have much higher use of food programs (40 percent vs. 22 percent for natives) and Medicaid (42 percent vs. 23 percent). Immigrant use of cash programs is somewhat higher than natives (12 percent vs. 10 percent) and use of housing programs is similar to natives.
•Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest.
•Many immigrants struggle to support their children, and a large share of welfare is received on behalf of U.S.-born children. However, even immigrant households without children have significantly higher welfare use than native households without children — 30 percent vs. 20 percent.
•The welfare system is designed to help low-income workers, especially those with children, and this describes many immigrant households. In 2012, 51 percent of immigrant households with one or more workers accessed one or more welfare programs, as did 28 percent of working native households.
•The large share of immigrants with low levels of education and resulting low incomes partly explains their high use rates. In 2012, 76 percent of households headed by an immigrant who had not graduated high school used one or more welfare programs, as did 63 percent of households headed by an immigrant with only a high school education.
•The high rates of immigrant welfare use are not entirely explained by their lower education levels. Households headed by college-educated immigrants have significantly higher welfare use than households headed by college-educated natives — 26 percent vs. 13 percent.
•In the four top immigrant-receiving states, use of welfare by immigrant households is significantly higher than that of native households: California (55 percent vs. 30 percent), New York (59 percent vs. 33 percent), Texas (57 percent vs. 34 percent), and Florida (42 percent vs. 28 percent).
•Illegal immigrants are included in the SIPP. In a forthcoming report, we will estimate welfare use for immigrants by legal status. However, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of immigrant households using welfare are headed by legal immigrants.
•Most new legal immigrants are barred from welfare programs when they first arrive, and illegal immigrants are barred as well. But the ban applies to only some programs; most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify for at least some programs and the bar often does not apply to children; states often provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; naturalizing makes immigrants eligible for all programs; and, most important, immigrants (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth.
•The heavy use of welfare by less-educated immigrants has three important policy implications: 1) prior research indicates that illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly less-educated, so allowing them to stay in the country creates significant welfare costs; 2) by admitting large numbers of less-educated immigrants to join their relatives, the legal immigration system brings in many immigrants who are likely to access the welfare system; and 3) proposals to allow in more less-educated immigrants to fill low-wage jobs would create significant welfare costs.