The CEO of Gallup has publicly warned President Joe Biden that approximately 42 million people south of Texas want to migrate into the United States.
In a blog post published on Wednesday, Jim Clifton, the chairman and CEO of the Gallup polling company, warned Biden as he and his administration struggle to deal with the surge of migration at the border:
Here are questions every leader should be able to answer regardless of their politics: How many more people are coming to the southern border? And what is the plan?
There are 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Roughly 450 million adults live in the region. Gallup asked them if they would like to move to another country permanently if they could.
A whopping 27% said “yes.” This means roughly 120 million would like to migrate somewhere.
Photo: Frontpagemag.com
Gallup then asked them where they would like to move. Of those who want to leave their country permanently, 35% — or 42 million — said they want to go to the United States.
In addition to finding a solution for the thousands of migrants currently at the border, let’s include the bigger, harder question — what about all of those who would like to come? What is the message to them?
What is the 10-year plan?
330 million U.S. citizens are wondering. So are 42 million Latin Americans.
According to the Breitbart report, the United States already has very high rates of legal and illegal migration.
With around “four million young Americans who turn 18 each year and begin looking for jobs, careers, spouses, homes, and families. Yet, the federal government imports roughly one million legal immigrants per year, each of whom compete for the jobs and housing sought by Americans,” according to the Breitbart report.
According to the Western Journal, “Clifton is no right-wing pundit”, his warning shows that the border crisis is not only a concern to conservative Americans as Gallup is not a right-leaning pollster.
“After taking office, Biden proposed a pathway to citizenship for millions of people in the United States unlawfully, and promised in an executive order to “create a humane asylum system.”
In a fresh twist on the Biden administration’s decision to house illegal immigrants at hotel facilities, crunching the numbers on the $86.9 million that is set to be spent on 1,239 beds shows that the cost to U.S. taxpayers will be nearly $72,000 per border-crosser housed.
“That works out to $71,666.67 per migrant, paid by your tax dollars, meaning that you are now a co-conspirator to one of the largest smuggling schemes in history,” wrote Andrew Arthur, a fellow with the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative policy research nonprofit.
Officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed to The Epoch Times that the Biden administration plans to use hotel facilities to accommodate family units unlawfully crossing the U.S.–Mexico border.
“The $86.9 million contract provides 1,239 beds and other necessary services,” said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Tae D. Johnson…
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas this week asserted that suspected Islamic terrorists can and have crossed the porous southern border for years, a claim that major media organizations and lawmakers widely pilloried as a fear-mongering falsehood when President Donald Trump and his administration made the same claim in 2019. Below photo: CIS.org
Photo: CIS.org
Mayorkas’ comments that migrant suspects on U.S. terrorism watch lists cross the border came amid the latest round of controversy about the terrorist infiltration claim, which began when a delegation of 13 Republican lawmakers, returning from the border, relayed that Border Patrol agents told them that three Yemeni migrants and a Serb on the U.S. terrorism watch list had been apprehended since October. Major media such as ABC News and the Washington Post quickly published stories, largely featuring Democratic lawmakers and self-described border security experts lashing out at House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other delegation members as lying and re-disseminating a disproven conspiracy theory.
“Weird as the Chairman of the subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations and a border state member of Congress haven’t heard anything about this,” tweeted Rep. Ruben Gallego, a Democrat who represents the Phoenix area. “Gonna ask for a briefing. Pretty sure he is either wrong or lying.”
“The notion that the Southwest border is open to terrorists is ludicrous,” Alex Nowrasteh, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, told ABC News, for instance. “The government has shown no evidence that terrorists use the Southwest border to get into the United States.”
But all such talk disappeared mid-stride after a routine weekly U.S. House Homeland Security Committee hearing Tuesday March 16. During it, the Democratic DHS appointee Mayorkas acknowledged that suspected terrorist migrants routinely travel to the southern border. The remarks were stunning in that they came from the Democrat side of the aisle, rather than the usual Republican side.
“A known or suspected terrorist — KST is the acronym that we use — individuals who match that profile, have tried to cross the border, the land border, have tried to travel by air into the United States, not only this year but last year, the year prior and so on and so forth,” Mayorkas testified. (Listen to his comments here, at about the 1:48:00 mark.)… read the rest here from CIS.org
Newspaper continues to push rejected illegal alien-friendly legislation
The liberal AJC is still trying to sell the now all-but-dead HB 120 scam. The morning after Rep Kasey Carpenter’s “instate tuition” bill formally expired due to an absence of Rules Committee attention, AJC reporter Greg Bluestein lamented the GOP had lost a chance to win over more immigrants and Latino voters. A real mensch, Bluestein is always very concerned about the Republican’s well being.
In today’s ‘Capitol Recap’. AJC Premium Editor Jim Denery did a rerun of the Bluestein goop. Update: The AJC also printed the same “news” in the Sunday edition.
AJC Enterprise editor Jim Denery. Photo: AJC.
Neither of them seem to understand or care that Kasey Carpenter is a shameless huckster. Neither of them seem to understand simple immigration law and neither seem to be able to process news of federal court decisions reported in their own newspaper.
We have lost count of the number of news outlets that falsely reported that “DACA recipients” were the target of Carpenter’s first two versions of HB 120 on instate tuition and that “DACA” was part of the bill language. Triple dog dare: Show us the numbers of the lines that contain “DACA.”
The reality, easily verified by actually reading those bills, is that DACA was never mentioned in the language. We think the various reporters swallowed Carpenter’s carnival barker, verbal presentation of the bill without reading the legislation. Either that or as often happens with the agenda-driven Atlanta Journal Constitution, staff and management were in on the hustle.
This writer pointed this “DACA” discrepancy out to House legislators in committee.
I also pointed out that the liberal AJC has reported the 11th circuit appellate court has ruled that illegal aliens with DACA are illegal aliens. How much “lawful presence” do they have? Zero.
Photo: DIS.
Carpenter finally did actually insert “DACA” language into his Orwellian, ‘Hail Mary’ latest version. In addition to the existing instate and out-of-state tuition fees, he also invented a new proposed tier of tuition rates: “Opportunity Tuition” – for illegal aliens who would be known as “Opportunity Students.”
It wasn’t “instate tuition” at all. Carpenter should feel cheated. He concocted this goofy Newspeak wording but the AJC ignored his work.
Americans and legal immigrants from most other states would not be allowed to pay the lower “Opportunity Tuition” rates. Only illegal aliens who landed in Georgia before 2013 (*or who move in with parents who say they were here in 2013) could get that special deal. At least until the next time these liberals couldn’t bear the “unfairness” of borders and immigration laws. Then it would be back to the Gold Dome to change that 2013 date to 2021 or whatever year they decided represented “justice.”
The danger to pro-enforcement Georgians of the AJC’s constant hard sell is that most Georgia legislators know more about Martian trigonometry than they do about immigration. In large part we blame this on reading and believing the AJC.
I left a voicemail for Denery late Friday afternoon. I don’t expect a return call and I don’t expect the AJC correction I asked his editors to run.
We created factual info (but with verification) on HB 120 here and here and here and here .
________
Updated 11:42 March 13 – corrected title on editor Jim Denery.
Updated 10:15 AM March 14 – addition of info on GBPI.
*Updated 6:04 PM March 14 – added detail of illegal aliens moving in with parents.
Illegal aliens protest to demand “equity.” Image: Twitter
Vote record below, but first, a special note on Marietta Republican Rep Bert Reeves who, before he voted “yes” expressed his gratitude to Republican sponsor Kasey Carpenter for his “courage” and cited “unfair insults” and “blatant lies” surrounding opposition to Rep Carpenter’s HB 120. We are very curious to know exactly what Rep Reeves is talking about and hope that he will find the same courage to openly cite the “lies” he mentions in committee. We did write about HB 120 bill here and here.
You can watch a one-minute video of Reeves in committee on Youtube.
Republican Rep Katie Dempsey.Photo: GA General Assembly.
We also share a special note on Rome Republican Rep Katie Dempsey for her “evolution.” Dempsey was a (silent) co-sponsor of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011 (HB87) but yesterday joined Reeves and voted with the Democrats to give illegal aliens special treatment unavailable to Americans and legal immigrants from most other states.
The Dustin Inman Society will work with the coming new “Liberty Group” to find primary opponents for both Reeves and Dempsey. See the other Republicans who voted with the Democrats below.
HB 120 is now out of committee. If you want to stop it from going to the Senate, please leave a short, polite message with Speaker Ralston’s staff: 404-656-5020. Do not assume your own Republican Rep is a “NO” vote in the full House. The big money, pro-amnesty lobby is driving this bill.
VOTE RECORD
ILLEGAL ALIENS SHOULD PAY LESS TUITION IN GA’S PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES THAN AMERICANS AND LEGAL IMMIGRANTS FROM MOST OTHER STATES
VOTE ON PASSING OUT HB 120, MARCH 4, 2021 PASSED 16-4
In his long testimony to a legislative committee chock full of senior House members, Georgia Secretary of State General Counsel Ryan Germany passed on a remarkable amount of inaccurate and incomplete “facts” last Friday. From where this writer was sitting it appeared the assignment was to kill the measure at hand, HB 228.
The hearing in the Special Committee on Election Integrity admittedly involved “in the weeds” details on immigration law. But it also dealt with Motor Voter registration, Georgia driving credentials, ID Cards given to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals and the security measures involved in the issuing process. In addition to Germany’s, the general lack of knowledge of many of the legislators was quite extraordinary.
Example? In a state where legislators endlessly seek to increase foreign labor, exactly who can obtain a Social Security number seems to be a deep and mysterious unknown.
From a transcript of the hearing on voter security and “proper identification” at the polls:
Committee member and Speaker Pro-Tem Jan Jones to Ryan: “So I guess follow up if you’re not a citizen, you wouldn’t have social security number?”
From the witness podium, Secretary of State General Counsel Germany: “Uh, I believe it’s possible to have a social if you’re not a citizen, but it’s, but it’s not, it’s not, um, a typical occurrence by any means.”
That’s not accurate Mr. Germany
GA Secretary of State General Counsel Ryan Germany. Photo: Law.com
The fact that Ryan Germany was put in a position to influence the outcome of pending legislation and apparently does not know his statement to the House Speaker Pro Tem is wildly wrong should be alarming to all concerned.
The reality is that foreign nationals aka “non-citizens” aka “aliens” can easily obtain a Social Security number. It is a very “typical occurrence.”
Virtually every legal immigrant (green card holder) in the U.S. – and we take in about a million every year – is given a Social Security number and they are under no obligation to ever become American citizens. Guest workers here on temporary visas are issued Social Security Numbers – more than 1.4 million guest workers in 2013 (for example). As is mentioned further down, about 600,000 illegal aliens have been issued Social Security numbers.
*In his testimony and a response to another question from Speaker Pro Tem Jones, SoS General Counsel Germany told her “So, um, that means that when, when they’re checking their status at DDS, when you’re checking either citizen or, you know, legal resident, um, because it’s non-legal residents cannot get driver’s licenses or IDs in Georgia.”
This is due to the fact that the REAL ID Act contains a section (MINIMUM DOCUMENT REQUIREMENT AND ISSUANCE STANDARDS… (Sec. 202, (2) (B) ) which says illegal aliens with deferred action on deportation (and other categories of administrative status) have “legal status” for purposes of drivers licenses and ID cards only. The status does not transfer out of that narrow regulation.
For example, these illegal aliens with DACA have Georgia drivers licenses and ID Cards but are not allowed instate tuition rates at USG/TCSG schools. While he is stone silent on the entire issue as governor, in 2018 even then-candidate Brian Kemp recognized that “illegal immigrants” with DACA do not qualify for the Hope scholarship. No Obamacare either. Why? Because they are, using the words of Ryan Germany, “non-legal residents.”
In a March, 2019 opinion the 11th circuit appellate court noted the obvious: “As DACA recipients, they simply were given a reprieve from potential removal; that does not mean they are in any way ‘lawfully present under the (INA) act.” Even the liberal AJC reported it.
We noted that decision in 2019 with observations on how public benefits are administered in Georgia.
It is very possible Mr. Germany lacks this knowledge. The committee considering HB 228 should not have similar gaps of information.
On the topic of REAL ID compliant credentials, Germany informed the committee considering DDS-issued credentials used as voter ID that “…since 2012, I believe (DDS) has only issued Real IDs for driver’s license or state ID.”
Ryan Germany testifies to the Special Committee on Election Integrity Feb 26, 2021. Photo: dak
Not exactly, Mr. Germany.
As I type, I am looking at my own Georgia drivers license issued in January 2016. It is not REAL ID compliant. It has no gold star. What Germany omitted in his “expert” education to legislators in the HB228 hearing is the fact that if anyone obtains both an ID card and a DL DDS will only make one document REAL ID Act compliant – which is noted with a gold star in upper right corner.
Photo dak
It should be made clear – again – that the illegal aliens with Georgia-issued drivers licenses and ID Cards are given the same credentials as U.S. citizens with the exception of the words “LIMITED TERM” on top.
“Amid heated battles over voting rights, Georgia has emerged as an unlikely national leader in automatic voter registration, according to a study this month by the Brennan Center for Justice. The study estimated that 94% more voters registered in Georgia than if the state hadn’t implemented automatic voter registration in September 2016.”
House Bill 228 is designed to make human and/or systemic error resulting in illegal voting much less possible. The bill closes a loophole in current law that does not prohibit foreign national’s drivers licenses and/or ID Cards from acceptance as “proper identification” at the Georgia’s polls. It clearly marks these documents with “BEARER NOT A U.S. CITIZEN – NOT VALID VOTER ID.”
It is not apparent that the committee realized one of Germany’s most important statements came in his answer to another question from Speaker Pro Tem Jan Jones. She asked “is it possible though for a non citizen, um, to accidentally be registered to vote, say at the county level, if they go to their county board registration to register that?”
“I wouldn’t say it’s impossible” was Germany’s reply.
That is accurate, Mr. Germany.
A parting note on DDS testimony at the same hearing
“A Georgia DL/ID is not proof of lawful status in the U.S. so it is important to note that an expired LIMITED-TERM card does not mean the person is in the country illegally.” – statement on the DDS website as of 2:25 PM March 2, 2021..
We are focused on testimony in committee from “experts” to legislators with apparent wide gaps in knowledge of immigration law and how secure credentials are issued in Georgia. It’s a good place for a quick note on the video testimony of Ms. Shevondah Leslie who is Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS) Director of Governmental Affairs and Communications.
Space here does not allow extensive coverage, but Leslie effectively told committee members multiple times that everyone who is issued a Georgia drivers license and/or ID Card is “lawfully present.”
To repeat information offered above, the federal government – the source of immigration laws that decide status – tells us something quite different. So does a former federal immigration judge.
It is long past time that responsible lawmakers pay attention.
“Current law does not grant any legal status for the class of individuals who are current recipients of DACA. Recipients of DACA are currently unlawfully present in the U.S. with their removal deferred” – here.
Again, more than twenty thousand DACA recipients alone have Georgia drivers licenses and/or ID Cards. There are other categories of illegal aliens with state ID credentials.
In response to inquiries from past state legislators, DDS has revealed that the SAVE system does not confirm “lawful presence” for DACA recipients – but rather temporary employment authorization. That phrase notes that Obama gave these illegal aliens a work permit and an SSN. It does not in any way contradict the laws from congress as noted in the 11th circuit appellate court decision.
In response to questions on the non-citizen drivers licenses a DDS spox once told a news outlet
“DDS has not changed the policy regarding driver’s license and/or identification card issuance to non-citizens. Those non-citizens in Deferred Action Status are eligible for GA licenses and IDs per the Federal Dream Act (assuming that they meet all other GA licensing criteria). Here.
We hope that it does not come as news to readers here that the DREAM Act failed to pass in congress multiple times. There is no “federal DREAM Act.” You can read that one here.
A DDS liaison once assured a state legislator, in writing, “we don’t issue cards to illegal aliens.”
There is much more information available for lawmakers who want to make educated decisions on all matters immigration and “non-citizens.” That issue is crucial to HB 228 which is focused on clarifying and ease of recognition the ID we give to foreigners in Georgia.
Indoor billboard outside Ga. Gov. Kemp’s Gold dome office. Photo: dak 26Feb2021.
For Georgians curious as to why there is a thunderclap of instant and powerful opposition to adding clarifying wording on credentials issued to foreign nationals, it should be noted that a very important goal of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce is more, not fewer foreign workers in “the number one state for business.” Any change in marking these documents is counter to the already announced goal from the business lobby at the leftist Georgia Budget and Policy Institute.– drivers licenses for all “immigrants” – legal or not. Election integrity comes behind that ambition for far too many obedient people in power in Georgia.
Like in California.
—
Note: A link to the official video record and transcript of the February 26, 2021 hearing can be accessed on the ImmigrationPoliticsGA website.
*Updated March 6, 11:13 PM. Corrected (deleted) a repeated paragraph typo concerning Ryan Germany response to Speaker Pro Team Jones on “…non-legal residents cannot get driver’s licenses or IDs in Georgia.” I regret the error. dak
Updated jan 5, 2022 to expand stated number of illegal aliens with SSNs.
Criminal Alien Amnesty Hiding in Biden Amnesty Bill
Andrew Arthur
March 1, 2021
Center for Immigration Studies
Hidden within President Biden’s amnesty bill is a “sleeper” provision that grants amnesty to criminal aliens — or at least makes them eligible to seek it. The fact is, the difference is not that great, as I will explain. You could call it the “Drug Trafficker, Pimp, and Rapist Relief Act” (and include murderers, child sex offenders, and those who convicted of slavery, too).
You have to get down to section 1204, at p. 73, to find the provision, euphemistically named “Restoring Fairness to Adjudications”. Sounds reasonable. Until you read it.
That section would add new waivers to sections 212(c) and 237(a)(8) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Let me give you some history to better explain how breathtakingly lenient those provisions are.
Because it provided relief to some pretty unsavory criminal aliens. Here’s how that provision read, from 1952 to 1990:
Aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence who temporarily proceeded abroad voluntarily and not under an order of deportation, and who are returning to a lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven consecutive years, may be admitted in the discretion of the Attorney General without regard to [their excludability under section 212(a) of the INA].
I will stop right there to explain what that means. The old 212(c) waiver was originally only available to aliens with green cards, and only then if they had been living in the United States for seven years. And it was originally meant to grant them a waiver if they were returning from abroad.
In 1976, however, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that it also applied to green card holders who had not left the United States, finding on due process and equal protection grounds that it was not fair to treat returning immigrants differently. That made section 212(c) waivers a form of relief from deportation.
In 2001, the Supreme Court held that: “The extension of § 212(c) relief to the deportation context has had great practical importance, because deportable offenses have historically been defined broadly.” In other words, if you were a lawful permanent resident criminal who had not left the United States, until 1976, you were likely to be deported (because that is what Congress wanted).
And it was granted pretty liberally: Between 1989 and 1995, more than 10,000 aliens were granted 212(c) relief, many if not most because those green-card holders were deportable on criminal grounds. One immigration judge (IJ) before whom I appeared told me that she would usually grant it to an alien at least once.
Recognizing that, again, some serious criminals were benefitting from this waiver, in 1990, Congress barred aliens convicted of aggravated felonies from 212(c) relief if they had served a sentence of five years or more for those crimes. That still allowed some serious criminals to stay, because even though many criminals are sentenced to more slammer time, few actually are in prison for a half decade.
Congress narrowed the waiver even further six years later, in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996. It barred 212(c) relief to an alien convicted of any aggravated felony, drug crimes, firearms offenses, and some crimes involving moral turpitude.
But even then, five months later 212(c) was rescinded by IIRIRA and replaced by a different form of relief, cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents (42A cancellation), available only to lawful permanent residents who have not been convicted of aggravated felonies.
The decision to rescind 212(c) relief was hardly partisan — it was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton… more here.
Steven A. Camarota is the director of research and Karen Zeigler is a demographer at the Center. Jason Richwine, PhD, is a public policy analyst based in Washington, D.C., and a contributing writer at National Review.
Many of the Democratic candidates for president have endorsed providing health insurance to illegal immigrants. This analysis estimates the cost of providing illegal immigrants access to the existing system of government health benefits for low-income people. (We do not model the costs of scrapping the current system and giving all U.S. residents free government health insurance, as some candidates have proposed.) We estimate that there are 4.9 million uninsured illegal immigrants with incomes low enough to qualify for Medicaid or Advanced Premium Tax Credits (APTC), which are the subsidies provided by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Assuming a realistic enrollment rate, the cost of providing ACA subsidies to illegal immigrants would be about $10 billion per year, with costs rising to as much as $23 billion per year if all eligible illegal immigrants enrolled. Costs would be similar under a hybrid approach that provides Medicaid for the lowest-income illegal immigrants and ACA subsidies for those with higher incomes.
Consistent with other research, we estimate that there are 4.9 million uninsured illegal immigrants with incomes low enough (less than 400 percent of the poverty threshold) to qualify for subsidies under the ACA.
Given their age and income, the average cost of providing an ACA subsidy for an illegal immigrant would be about $4,600 each year.
The total cost of providing ACA subsidies to illegal immigrants could be $22.6 billion annually if they all enrolled. The total cost assuming a more realistic enrollment rate is $10.4 billion per year.
While the overall cost would be large, the average subsidy illegal immigrants would receive is still smaller than the average ACA subsidy. This is primarily because illegal immigrants are a relatively young population.
Although we consider an ACA-only approach the most likely, we also estimate the costs of a hybrid ACA-Medicaid scenario, in which the lowest-income illegal immigrants (about half of the illegal population) are given Medicaid, while those with higher incomes still receive ACA subsidies.
Compared to an ACA-only approach, the total cost of the ACA-Medicaid hybrid would be similar — $19.6 billion when assuming 100 percent enrollment, and $10.7 billion assuming a more realistic enrollment rate in both programs.
We do not attempt to estimate indirect or second-level costs, such as the possibility that offering government health benefits could incentivize more illegal immigration.
Introduction
Under current law, illegal immigrants are not allowed to participate in the healthcare exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). As a result, they cannot receive Advanced Premium Tax Credits (APTC), which are the subsidies paid to insurance companies to help low-income people afford coverage. Illegal immigrants are also generally barred from participating in Medicaid, with the exception of minors in certain states and pregnant women nationwide. At the June 27 Democratic presidential debate, all of the candidates endorsed giving government health benefits to illegal immigrants, but there was no discussion of exactly how that would work or how much it would cost. According to a subsequent survey by The Atlantic, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Julian Castro all would “provide full benefits to the undocumented.” On the other side of the spectrum, Michael Bennet and Joe Biden suggested only allowing illegal immigrants to buy unsubsidized insurance on the healthcare exchanges.1
In response to these proposals, the Center for Immigration Studies has issued two new reports. The first report details the participation rate and cost of Medicaid usage by immigrants under existing policy, which offers noncitizens less access to the program compared to citizens.2 This second report explores the added costs of offering public health benefits to illegal immigrants.3
The two public health benefits typically offered to low-income uninsured people are ACA subsidies and Medicaid. There are nearly five million illegal immigrants in the country without health insurance with incomes low enough to qualify for these benefits. Since the average annual cost of these benefits is several thousand dollars per person, the total price tag for insuring illegal immigrants must be in the billions of dollars. Assuming 100 percent enrollment, we calculate the annual cost of providing ACA subsidies to be $22.6 billion, and $19.6 billion if illegal immigrants receive a mix of ACA credits and Medicaid. Assuming likely enrollment rates, the costs would be $10.4 billion for an ACA-only approach and $10.7 billion for a mix of ACA subsidies and Medicaid.
How the ACA Works
Those with incomes under 400 percent of poverty ($83,120 for a family of three in 2018) are eligible for ACA subsidies that reduce the amount they pay for health insurance. ACA subsidies are typically paid by the federal government to insurance companies on behalf of low-income consumers who buy health insurance on the federal or state-run exchanges.4 For the most part, those purchasing insurance through the exchanges are either self-employed or not offered insurance through their employer.5 The ACA was designed to provide Medicaid coverage to all adults with incomes below 138 percent of poverty ($28,676 in 2018 for a family of three). Empowered by a 2012 Supreme Court ruling, many states have chosen not to expand Medicaid coverage, but ACA subsidies are still available to all low-income people (except illegal immigrants) in non-expansion states.6
The size of the ACA subsidy primarily reflects a person’s age and income, with income measured relative to the poverty threshold. The size of the subsidy goes up as a person’s income goes down. Those with the lowest incomes are typically on Medicaid, especially in the expansion states. Factors such as overall health or pre-existing conditions do not impact the size of the premium or the subsidy.
Findings
A detailed explanation of methods can be found at the end of this report. To summarize, we estimate the age and poverty status of illegal immigrants based on Census Bureau data and then calculate an ACA subsidy for those with incomes low enough to qualify. For the lowest-income uninsured illegal immigrants, we also estimate the cost of providing Medicaid based on state of residence, age, and disability status. Costs are calculated alternatively under the assumption of a 100 percent enrollment rate for all eligible illegal immigrants, and also under the assumption of a lower “likely” enrollment rate.
Figure 1 and Tables 1 and 2 summarize our findings. We estimate there are 4.9 million illegal immigrants who have incomes below 400 percent of the poverty threshold and who do not have insurance. This is the cutoff for premium subsidies. We run two scenarios: In Scenario 1, we estimate the cost if illegal immigrants receive ACA subsidies only. In Scenario 2, we examine the cost if the lowest-income illegal immigrants receive Medicaid, while the higher-income illegal immigrants receive ACA subsidies
Reward for information, Image, Dustin Inman Society
On the right side of our Homepage readers can see our new #BigTruckTrick counter that provides the number of days since Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp promised to take action on illegal immigration in a state with more illegal alien than Arizona – and more illegal than green card holders. We hope you will share it. Click on the #BigTruckTrick link!
Newspaper continues to push rejected illegal alien-friendly legislation
