This post may contain affiliate links. Please read our disclosure for more information.
When I was a kid, I was all for leaving the lights on when I left a room. When I became an adult, however, and was responsible for paying the electric bill, my casual attitude toward light management ended. Lights left on in an unoccupied room suddenly became a crime against humanity.
I think my light-management epiphany also applies to immigration. Many of my fellow Americans are all for immigration—both legal and illegal. But would they be for it if they actually had to pay for it?
Suppose for the moment that our welfare programs were share-benefit based rather than define-benefit based. Those enrolled in a particular welfare program didn’t get a set amount of money. They got a share, and the value of that was determined by dividing the program’s set budget allocation by the number of people enrolled. And let’s further suppose that our government couldn’t aid immigrants outside our welfare programs. If immigrants needed aid, they would have to get it through the same programs that Americans got it. Here’s an example of what that would look like using SNAP (i.e., food stamps).
Share-Benefit SNAP without Immigrants
| Set Budget Allocation for SNAP | Number of Citizens Enrolled in SNAP | Monthly-Benefit Per Person |
| $93 Billion | 41 Million | $189 |
Share-Benefit SNAP with 20 Million New Immigrants
| Set Budget Allocation for SNAP | Number of Citizens and Non-Citizens Enrolled in SNAP | Monthly-Benefit Per Person |
| $93 Billion | 61 Million | $127 |
Now a question: Would pro-immigration Americans remain pro-immigration if our immigration policies reduced the monthly SNAP benefit per person by 32 percent over a span of a few years? I seriously doubt it. Pro-immigration Americans are only pro-immigration because the cost of immigration is being masked by the scam of deficit spending.
Okay, groovy freedomist, that’s all I got. What say you? I say pro-immigration Americans are deluding themselves. They’re only for de-facto open borders because they don’t have to compete against the “asylum seekers” for jobs and housing, and, most importantly, they don’t have to pay for the cost of feeding, clothing, housing, educating, and healing “asylum seekers.” Let me know what you think when you get a chance. Peace.

Leave a Reply to Dale Cancel reply