Some Red State/Blue State Indicia
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
I’ve spent time in the non-profit world and this is just an immensely normal thing? Organizations submit for grants for programs they’re already developing. Typically they’re also being funded by individual donors and the grant allows them the ability to complete their vision. Oregon lawmakers were not just devising strategies to help permanent residents at the expense of citizens. All that said, I don’t actually agree with this for reasons I’ve stated previously. Benefits like this should be targeted around those in need rather than those in a specific class of people.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
When my youngest son graduated from high school, I read over the list of college scholarships sponsored by various organizations. There were scholarships for grandchildren of immigrants from Sicily. Others for descendants of Holocaust survivors. Others for students who could prove they had an ancestor who fought in the Civil War. All sponsored by various private benefactors. I leave it to my fellow board members to decide whether their generosity is to be applauded or condemned.
I know of various people who volunteer for programs that are specifically targeted toward helping immigrant children adapt to the American school system. I also leave it to my fellow board members to decide whether such activities are to be applauded or condemned.
I know of various people who volunteer for programs that are specifically targeted toward helping immigrant children adapt to the American school system. I also leave it to my fellow board members to decide whether such activities are to be applauded or condemned.
Last edited:
acesfull86
Well-known member
From the article:
"First-time homebuyers in Oregon are being encouraged to apply for a taxpayer-funded $30,000 grant for down payment assistance – but only non-U.S. citizens need apply.
I don't know anything about the program beyond this article, but taxpayer funded vs "sponsored by private benefactors" seems like an important distinction...
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Oregon spends over half a billion dollars a year on housing assistance for low-income people. If a tiny slice of that gets directed to a non-profit that happens to have carved out a niche working with immigrants, I don't think that is an injustice.
Just as I'm sure they spend educational funds specifically geared toward helping immigrant children make the transition to the American educational system, including programs for kids who do not speak English as a first language.
Most non-profits have a focus that is geared to a particular segment of the population. They are often a more effective way to accomplish something than to create a new layer of government. There are non-profits, for example, that focus on opioid or meth addiction and the problems that ensue. Some are partly funded from taxpayer funds. No one gets upset if it turns out that most of the addicts fall in a certain demographic category.
Last edited:
Yeah, Oregon just awarded some grant money from their larger pool of grant money. Oregon is almost certainly spending much, much more on housing initiatives for citizens. My minor objection is that I think the grant money would be better spent looking at need than citizenship status, but there’s typically a pretty big overlap between the two, so I wouldn’t think it’s outrageous to suggest that’s who will receive the help.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
For similar reasons we would help anyone in need get services such as housing, medical care, education, a drivers license.
sturg33
I
Is there a limit to this generous theft? What is it
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
That's for our political system to decide. Feel free to support politicians whose views correspond to yours on this and other matters.
sturg33
I
Clearly the opposition party who loves systemic racism is the majority
I believe people on work visas and green cards deserve an opportunity to receive benefits from the taxes they’re paying into our system.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
A slightly dated story (from 2022) on immigration (and in particular children of immigrants), with strong implications for why we should generously support immigrants. They and their children end up contributing much more than they take.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...e_code=1.Fk4.rCuY.cg6QVddYn_2M&smid=url-share
The lack of a shared set of facts about immigration makes it easy for accusatory and often false messages to echo loudly in the run-up to the midterm elections. J.D. Vance, a leading Republican candidate for Ohio’s open Senate seat, claimed in a recent advertisement that “Joe Biden’s open border is killing Ohioans, with more illegal drugs and more Democrat voters pouring into this country.” Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona has described immigration as “full scale invasion.” Tucker Carlson of Fox News told a guest on his show in 2017: “Go to Lowell, Mass., or Lewiston, Maine, or any place where large numbers of immigrants have been moved into a poor community, and it hasn’t become richer. It’s become poorer. That’s real.”
A new book, “Streets of Gold: America’s Untold Story of Immigrant Success,” by two economists, Prof. Ran Abramitzky of Stanford and Prof. Leah Boustan of Princeton, should undercut some of the fearmongering. They linked census records to pull together what they call “the first set of truly big data about immigration.”
Using the data set, Professor Abramitzky and Professor Boustan were able to compare the income trajectories of immigrants’ children with those of people whose parents were born in the United States. The economists found that on average, the children of immigrants were exceptionally good at moving up the economic ladder.
Immigrants and their children are assimilating into the United States as quickly now as in the past, the economists found. That’s in line with recent research into the effects of immigration. While “first-generation immigrants are more costly to governments than are the native-born,” according to a 2017 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, the “second generation are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.”
Second-generation-immigrant success stories have long been a part of America’s history. Looking at census records from 1880, the researchers found that men whose fathers were low-income immigrants made more money as adults than the sons of low-income men born in the United States. (They focused on sons because it was harder to track women from one census to the next, since so many adopted their husbands’ names at marriage.) Because of privacy restrictions, they had access to individual data only through the 1940 census. They used other sources for subsequent years.
Professor Abramitzky and Professor Boustan observed the same pattern a century later. Children born around 1980 to men from Mexico, India, Brazil and almost every other country outearned the children of U.S.-born men.
“America really does have golden streets that allow immigrants to quickly make more than they could have earned at home,” they write. But, they add, “moving up the economic ladder in America — and catching up to the U.S.-born — takes time.”
Once Professor Abramitzky and Professor Boustan found abundant evidence of second-generation immigrants’ upward mobility, they tried to figure out why those children did so well.
They arrived at two answers. First, the children had an easy time outdoing parents whose careers were inhibited by poor language skills or a lack of professional credentials. The classic example is an immigrant doctor who winds up driving a cab in the United States.
Second, immigrants tended to settle in parts of the country experiencing strong job growth. That gave them an edge over native-born Americans who were firmly rooted in places with faltering economies. Immigrants are good at doing something difficult: leaving behind relatives, friends and the familiarity of home in search of prosperity. The economists found that native-born Americans who do what immigrants do — move toward opportunity — have children who are just as upwardly mobile as the children of immigrants.
It is those immigrants who start at the bottom who ascend the most. In contrast, affluent, educated immigrants tend to be the least upwardly mobile, simply because they’re already at or near the top.
Professor Abramitzky and Professor Boustan dispute the argument that immigrants frequently take jobs from native-born Americans. Less skilled immigrants gravitate toward jobs for which there is relatively little competition from native-born Americans, such as picking crops, while highly skilled immigrants often create more jobs for native-born Americans by starting businesses and inventing things, they write.
The research of Professor Abramitzky and Professor Boustan has made headlines before, but in their new book they broaden and deepen the narrative with excerpts from diaries and oral histories of immigrants. Signe Tornbloom, 18, a daughter of hardscrabble Swedish farmers, immigrated alone in 1916 after receiving a letter that said, more or less: “Well, you’d better come over here. Everything is much better than it is at home.”
The notion that immigrants have become a permanent underclass, isolated from the American mainstream, is popular among immigration restrictionists — as well as among some pro-immigration groups that say immigrants need more help to break out of poverty. The truth is that today’s immigrants are advancing just as swiftly as those of the past. “The American dream,” Professor Abramitzky said in an interview, “is just as alive now as it was a century ago.”
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...e_code=1.Fk4.rCuY.cg6QVddYn_2M&smid=url-share
The lack of a shared set of facts about immigration makes it easy for accusatory and often false messages to echo loudly in the run-up to the midterm elections. J.D. Vance, a leading Republican candidate for Ohio’s open Senate seat, claimed in a recent advertisement that “Joe Biden’s open border is killing Ohioans, with more illegal drugs and more Democrat voters pouring into this country.” Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona has described immigration as “full scale invasion.” Tucker Carlson of Fox News told a guest on his show in 2017: “Go to Lowell, Mass., or Lewiston, Maine, or any place where large numbers of immigrants have been moved into a poor community, and it hasn’t become richer. It’s become poorer. That’s real.”
A new book, “Streets of Gold: America’s Untold Story of Immigrant Success,” by two economists, Prof. Ran Abramitzky of Stanford and Prof. Leah Boustan of Princeton, should undercut some of the fearmongering. They linked census records to pull together what they call “the first set of truly big data about immigration.”
Using the data set, Professor Abramitzky and Professor Boustan were able to compare the income trajectories of immigrants’ children with those of people whose parents were born in the United States. The economists found that on average, the children of immigrants were exceptionally good at moving up the economic ladder.
Immigrants and their children are assimilating into the United States as quickly now as in the past, the economists found. That’s in line with recent research into the effects of immigration. While “first-generation immigrants are more costly to governments than are the native-born,” according to a 2017 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, the “second generation are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S.”
Second-generation-immigrant success stories have long been a part of America’s history. Looking at census records from 1880, the researchers found that men whose fathers were low-income immigrants made more money as adults than the sons of low-income men born in the United States. (They focused on sons because it was harder to track women from one census to the next, since so many adopted their husbands’ names at marriage.) Because of privacy restrictions, they had access to individual data only through the 1940 census. They used other sources for subsequent years.
Professor Abramitzky and Professor Boustan observed the same pattern a century later. Children born around 1980 to men from Mexico, India, Brazil and almost every other country outearned the children of U.S.-born men.
“America really does have golden streets that allow immigrants to quickly make more than they could have earned at home,” they write. But, they add, “moving up the economic ladder in America — and catching up to the U.S.-born — takes time.”
Once Professor Abramitzky and Professor Boustan found abundant evidence of second-generation immigrants’ upward mobility, they tried to figure out why those children did so well.
They arrived at two answers. First, the children had an easy time outdoing parents whose careers were inhibited by poor language skills or a lack of professional credentials. The classic example is an immigrant doctor who winds up driving a cab in the United States.
Second, immigrants tended to settle in parts of the country experiencing strong job growth. That gave them an edge over native-born Americans who were firmly rooted in places with faltering economies. Immigrants are good at doing something difficult: leaving behind relatives, friends and the familiarity of home in search of prosperity. The economists found that native-born Americans who do what immigrants do — move toward opportunity — have children who are just as upwardly mobile as the children of immigrants.
It is those immigrants who start at the bottom who ascend the most. In contrast, affluent, educated immigrants tend to be the least upwardly mobile, simply because they’re already at or near the top.
Professor Abramitzky and Professor Boustan dispute the argument that immigrants frequently take jobs from native-born Americans. Less skilled immigrants gravitate toward jobs for which there is relatively little competition from native-born Americans, such as picking crops, while highly skilled immigrants often create more jobs for native-born Americans by starting businesses and inventing things, they write.
The research of Professor Abramitzky and Professor Boustan has made headlines before, but in their new book they broaden and deepen the narrative with excerpts from diaries and oral histories of immigrants. Signe Tornbloom, 18, a daughter of hardscrabble Swedish farmers, immigrated alone in 1916 after receiving a letter that said, more or less: “Well, you’d better come over here. Everything is much better than it is at home.”
The notion that immigrants have become a permanent underclass, isolated from the American mainstream, is popular among immigration restrictionists — as well as among some pro-immigration groups that say immigrants need more help to break out of poverty. The truth is that today’s immigrants are advancing just as swiftly as those of the past. “The American dream,” Professor Abramitzky said in an interview, “is just as alive now as it was a century ago.”
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
That's for our political system to decide.
I favor allowing immigrants to receive the same housing, educational, medical and other benefits.
Feel free to support candidates with views closer to yours.
sturg33
I
Can't quite figure out why there is a blue state exodus...
This feels like a very cynical view. By every measure imaginable we come out ahead on the relationship with skilled immigrants. They add to our nation’s wealth and innovation and in many cases pay in a *lot* of taxes. But even still, none of that matters much to me. I just believe that someone who is welcomed into our country should be given opportunities to prosper in the same way citizens are. I think it makes our country stronger to invest in working people, regardless of citizenship.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Red states can and do adopt their own distinctive policies with respect to whether they provide educational, medical, housing and other benefits. Ditto for blue states. A chacun son gout.
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
We also come out ahead as well with respect to lower skilled or lower income immigrants, especially when account is taken of the economic performances of their children. Those children pay far more in taxes than children of native-born parents. They are more entrepreneurial. Build more business that create wealth and jobs. As a group they are massive ballers. Obama and Harris are but the tip of the iceberg as far as children of foreign-born parents go. Their contributions to society are remarkable.
Last edited:
Also very true, but my main issue is I don’t think it should matter to begin with. If you can legally be here, you should be given all social and economic benefits as any other person. If not here legally, I’m open to discussions on how we handle it, but support broad measures to allow them to make a living here.