• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower
  • Advertisements

The Feminization of the American Male…..”Men seem to be becoming less male!”

K-12: The War on Boys and Men

by Bruce Deitrick Price at American Thinker:

“Fox News just announced an upcoming series about the plight of Men in America.

“Men seem to be becoming less male,” Tucker Carlson said.  “Something ominous is happening[.] … Men are taught there is something wrong with them.  We took a close look at the numbers, and we found them so shocking that we’re devoting the month of March to a special series on men in America.”

Carlson concluded, “You’ll be stunned by the scope of the crisis.  We were.  It’s a largely ignored disaster.  It affects every person in America.”

He noted, for example: “Men account for 77 percent of the nation’s suicides, they are more than twice as likely to become alcoholics, they are more likely to die of an overdose than women, and 90 percent of inmates are men.”

So what are the causes?  Eighteen years ago, Christina Hoff Sommers published The War on Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men.  Sommers concluded, “It’s a bad time to be a boy in America.  Boys are less likely than girls to go to college or do their homework.  They’re more likely to cheat on tests, wind up in detention, or drop out[.]”  In short, Sommers found the causes in feminist theory and, more surprisingly, inside the nation’s classrooms.

The dirty big secret here is that our public schools don’t announce social engineering; they simply do it, especially with regard to altering how children view themselves.  Public schools suppress boys and uplift girls in many furtive ways.  This manipulation has been hugely successful: 57% of college students are female; 43% are male.  More women stay in college and earn advanced degree.  Women wear business suits, and men drive pickup trucks.  Culturally similar men and women who used to marry each other are now separated by class differences!

The question still haunts us: how exactly are America’s social engineers able to win this war for females?

The discussion is tricky from every point of view.  However you might describe boys and girls, you’ll invite argument about what is good and what is bad.  If you say girls are “more sensitive,” is that an insult or a compliment?  The Atlantic Monthly nicely dances among many competing viewpoints:

[A] host of cross-cultural studies show that females … are more apt to plan ahead, set academic goals, and put effort into achieving those goals.  They also are more likely than boys to feel intrinsically satisfied with the whole enterprise of organizing their work, and more invested in impressing themselves and their teachers with their efforts[.] … On the whole, boys approach schoolwork differently.  They are more performance-oriented.  Studying for and taking tests taps into their competitive instincts.  For many boys, tests are quests that get their hearts pounding.

David Sortino, a teacher, argues on his blog: “[G]irls work best when sitting in a circle facing each other and find it more comfortable to learn in a group setting.  Instead, boys often excel in a traditional class structure with desks lined in rows, which could support their more competitive energies and attention getting behaviors.

“Girls respond to stress as a threat, which drives blood to the gut rather than to the brain, placing them in a fight or flight persona.  However, for boys, it’s the opposite.  They love to take risks and almost always overestimate their abilities.”

QED: There are big, very real differences.  We should wonder if these differences are artificially induced and then exaggerated.  Oh, so that’s why some schools have all students sitting around tables – because it’s good for girls…?

What we know for sure is that girls are outperforming boys at all levels.  Is this good for the country?  Is it good for the girls?

The Economist reported:

A new study by the OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development], a club of mostly rich countries, examined how 15-year-old boys and girls performed at reading, mathematics and science.  Boys still score somewhat better at maths, and in science the genders are roughly equal.  But when it comes to the students who really struggle, the difference is stark: boys are 50% more likely than girls to fall short of basic standards in all three areas [emphasis added].

Why are girls performing better at school than their male classmates?

“First,” according to the OECD study, “girls read more than boys.  Reading proficiency is the basis upon which all other learning is built.  When boys don’t do well at reading, their performance in other school subjects suffers too.”

The basis upon which all other learning is built.  That is ominous.  Suppose social engineers figured out how to undercut reading.

One statistical site states that “[w]omen are more likely to develop solid reading skills.  Around 38% of men report reading at the lowest proficiency levels, compared to 33% for women.”

Suppose our social engineers routinely seek to widen this gap.  That would be feasible because boys and girls respond in different ways to absurd instruction.

Girls, as noted, feel more comfortable in a group setting.  They want the whole group to move along harmoniously; they want their teacher to be successful.  The result is that they are more patient and long-suffering with dumb curricula and wrongly trained teachers.  Boys, on the other hand, are not so patient.  If there is a skill or a task, boys want to do well quickly.  Fair enough.  But what if the curriculum is inherently stupid and impossible to master?  Boys at some point will declare, I can’t do this.  I don’t want to do this.  I’m walking away.

Today, in Common Core, we see many absurdities almost perfectly designed to drive boys to escape and evasion.  The internet is full of videos of children weeping because instruction seems so illogical.  Little seven-year-olds are already beat up.

But the paradigm of stupid instruction remains Whole Word.  That’s where the student has to memorize the English language one word at a time.  The famous Dr. Samuel Orton, a neurologist, did a study in 1926-28 and declared that this method doesn’t work…and, in addition, it will damage every child it touches.  He was exactly correct, and the Education Establishment knows it.  What do we see in the schools of America?  Millions of semi-literate children with messed up minds.

StatisticBrain claims that 32 million Americans “can’t read.”  Tens of millions more read marginally.  This is a vast national  tragedy.  Ask yourself, why is this tolerated?  Perhaps because it makes the population easier to control.  Perhaps because it enables the stratification of the sexes.

You want to fix it?  Fix reading.  I think the smarter people understand this.  But the Education Establishment won’t let go because this particular stupid curriculum is the foundation for making women more successful and making men less successful.

Here is a good overview by TeacherMag:

But what if today’s classroom and curriculum structure catered (however unintentionally) to one gender more than the other?  Many researchers say this is now the case, with boys facing an upward struggle from primary school on.  For many boys, co-educational public schools can be uncomfortable, unfriendly, unproductive places.  Teaching styles and disciplinary habits are often not suited to the average boy[.] … In learning environments biased against their strengths, boys may become turned off or frustrated and may attempt to have their needs met by seeking negative attention.  This rebellion completes the circle of failure … with many boys labelled as troublemakers or diagnosed with hyperactivity.

That can mean drugs, which make boys weaker and less manly….”

Note by ghr:  There is no doubt that compared to the almost  three generations I have lived   the American ‘girl’  (by birth) has been butched up in feature and dress, fattened up tremendously everywhere, and ditsier by head.   Mother is working.  Dad might be absent.  Schools have become empty of learning, loaded with twits of all ages and sexes.   No history is taught.  No history books allowed for they advance the story of the human male…..a crime of the first order in the fascist state of Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary R. Clinton.

What IS taught is the garbage poison arriving from feminist mouths of all colors, shapes, sexes and sizes, that there is no differences between human female and male animals.

Then their is the black  feminist-atheist lie sold in the American knowledge-free, hate white filled public and private schools where ever they exist, that the human white male animal  has been the source of  World evil throughout human history…..which is at maximum ten years of racist memorization  in the American urban black so-called “education” system…..After all that is what the Sovietized Urban Black-White Racist leftists sell in their protests, attacks, and burnings since November, 2016.
And don’t forget the tricks played by the Charles Blow news world  of racist sales in the world closer to Wall Street.    Hillary and her herd are certain that males  outside of her leftist government ilk  are deplorables  and worse.   She is a man hater especially if he is white.
Worst of all, the arrogant leftists, especially the wealthy  Jewish political and intellectual LEFT led in my day by Alan Dershowitz,   have worked overtime during the past  sixty  years  following World War II to destroy JudeoChristianity, the very  core of human decency, freedom,  and civilization, the greatness upon which  our American republic was based, the civilization now conquered by corporate greed and the worship of ignorance to make human male and female EQUAL!
Please do read the following article:



The Flaky, Feminized Dance Called Trudeau’s Canada

The Embarrassing, Hilarious, Can’t-Look-Away Trudeau Show

by Fay Voshell   at  American Thinker

See also: Silly costumes were the least problem with Justin Trudeau’s ‘disaster trip’ to India

Imagine the reaction of the media if President Trump donned lederhosen and tried to do a German folk dance during a trip to meet with Germany’s Angela Merkel.  Or imagine if India’s president, Ram Nath Kovind, arrived for a state visit to Canada dressed as a red-jacketed Canadian Mountie or as a plaid-shirted lumberjack carrying an axe.

The equivalent of the above is pretty much what Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attempted during his recent trip to India, where he made himself a laughingstock because of his fervid embrace of the religion of multiculturalism.


was quite a show.  Nothing was too much for Trudeau to do if it buttressed his devotion to national traditions other than the traditions of his own country, which is supposed to be Canada.  Trudeau acted as if he were a representative of India, not Canada.  He dressed like an Indian, tried to dance like an Indian, gestured like an Indian.

Nothing was off limits when it came to his acting, either.  As Business Insider reported, “At one point, Trudeau, wearing traditional dress, broke into the Indian dance called the Bhangra, to a mixed reaction on Twitter.”

Oh, it must have been something to see.  Or not.

Some observers, such as Omar Abdullah, former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, apparently had had enough of the Trudeau show after three days of the prime minster decking himself out in splendid Indian dress and prancing through the steps of the Bhangra.  Abdullah tweeted, “Is this choreographed cuteness all just a bit much now?  Also, FYI we Indians don’t dress like this every day sir, not even in Bollywood.”

Underlying Trudeau’s obvious cultural appropriation of India’s tradition of sartorial splendor is the belief that identification with any culture but the Western tradition is virtuous.  Pretending to be an Indian from the upper classes or a member of Bollywood is supposedly better than being dressed in a suit or a tuxedo, both of which are ordinary Western dress but both of which may have been deemed by Trudeau as giving off vibes of Western imperialism.

He erred even more by hauling his entire family onto the multiculturalist stage, having them all dress in Indian attire while assuming the gestures typical of an Indian greeting.  It all looked like a badly staged version of the Von Trapp family done Indian style.  Thankfully, the family didn’t sing.

Perhaps some of the messages were unintentional, but at the heart of the Trudeau show is the idea that imitation is the sincerest form of diplomacy.

It isn’t.

On the contrary, the whole cringe-inducing episode had to have been humiliating for many of the people of Canada, including some of the immigrants from India who are part of Canada’s population.  What are they to think of their prime minister’s ridiculous performances?  Surely, they have seen that Trudeau’s efforts were not truly diplomatic.  Surely, they have noted the insulting fakery.  This is to say nothing of the very bad acting and dancing.

There are some lessons to be learned from Trudeau’s bad stagecraft.

First, ersatz pretenses of multiculturalism coupled with bad acting should never be part of diplomacy.  It is diplomatic to understand the history of the nation one is visiting.  It is gracious diplomacy to avoid egregious offenses by learning what the host country considers good manners.  It is not good diplomacy to present oneself as an imitation citizen of the country that has invited you to visit.

Second, to state the obvious: Mr. Trudeau supposedly was visiting India to represent Canada, not India itself.  Canada has its own integrity and national traditions, which traditions are the ones Mr. Trudeau is supposed to represent.  Some of those traditions include parliamentary government vested in the national interests of Canada, which still technically is part of the British Commonwealth.  In other words, Canada is Western in its history, not Indian.  Mr. Trudeau is a Westerner, though he appears either not to know it or not to like it.

Third, Trudeau’s attachment to the ideals of globalism is obvious.  Even if it is at the expense of his own country, he apparently is committed to following the old adage, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”  If he were in Tibet, he would probably attempt to take up a prayer wheel and learn throat-singing.  If he were in Japan, he might be inclined to wear a samurai costume and thrum away on the shamisen.  Were he in Australia, he might try the “Kangaroo Hop” on the didgeridoo.  Nor would he neglect trying out the melodious flugelhorn while in the Swiss alps.

In any case, he has revealed himself as a chameleon who will try to assume the cultural identity of any nation he visits – any nation other than Canada.

In view of his bending over backward to be all things to all people, we can hazard a guess that as Trudeau returns to Canada, he will doubtless continue to try to be all things to all peoplekind.



Trump a Breath of Fresh American Air


by Paul Mirengoff   at PowerLine:

After the 2016 election, the left and some Never Trumpers warned of dire consequences. Civil liberties would be curtailed. Court orders would be disobeyed. Russia would dictate our foreign policy. Trump would lead us into war. And that was just for starters.

Nothing of the sort has occurred. Nothing close.

This creates a problem for the left, its media allies, and some Never Trumpers. What happens when non-partisans realize that there are no catastrophic, or even particularly dark consequences from this presidency, just conservative policies and a bunch of unfortunate tweets? The answer is a dreaded one: Trump becomes “normalized.”

This dread explains, I think, why lefty outlets like the Washington Post must feed readers a daily dose of anti-Trump material. On an ordinary day, the Post’s readers can expect a minimum of two front page stories a day of some alleged Trump outrage, plus more on the inside pages.

Since a president, no matter how bad, cannot commit that many outrages per day, the Post’s stories are frequently ridiculous. The one I discussed yesterday by Philip Rucker and Ashley Parker is an example.

Here’s another. Yesterday, the Post ran a front page story about how Melania Trump and her parents “very likely” are taking advantage of chain migration, notwithstanding Donald Trump’s attempt to change the law so as to limit such migration.

Melania’s parents, Viktor and Amalija Knavs, hail from Slovenia. They are here on green cards and seek to become citizens. Immigration experts say they very likely are relying on the fact that they are the parents of an American citizen, and thus are taking advantage of chain migration.

President Trump favors limiting chain migration. He would make it unavailable to parents of citizens.

Okay, but what’s the point? Why is this story front page news?

The Knavs are doing nothing illegal. Nor is there anything wrong with, or hypocritical about, the Trump family benefiting from a program that Donald Trump thinks is bad policy.

When the government provides a benefit — e.g., a payment or subsidy — there is nothing problematic about accepting it, even if one believes it would be better policy not to provide it. For example, I claim tax deductions I think should be eliminated. I’d be a fool not to.

Matters would be more complicated if Trump opposed the current chain migration regime for moral reasons, but he doesn’t. His objection is policy based.

Trump believes, as I do, that on balance it better serves American interests to award citizenship based on what immigrants can contribute to the country, rather than on certain family relationships they have to American citizens. (Some critics claim that Trump’s real goal is keeping the country white. I see no evidence that this is his motive, but it too would be a policy objection to chain migration, not a moral one).

So, again, why is the Knavs’ immigration story front page news? It is front page news because the mainstream media needs to keep up its anti-Trump drumbeat to counteract the growing public sense that this presidency doesn’t resemble the one the left warned us about.


Corruption in the Obama Labor Department Carried Over into Trumpland…Whatever For?


by Paul Mirengoff   at  PowerLine:

As described below, Department of Labor policy and practice supports illegal immigrants in at least three ways. This shouldn’t be surprising. Illegal immigrants had no better friend in the Obama administration, and few anywhere in American, than Tom Perez, Obama’s Secretary of Labor.

Here is how Perez used the DOL to promote the interests of illegal immigrants. First, an Obama administration-era memorandum of understanding between the DOL, the EEOC, the NLRB and DHS/ICE prohibits ICE from conducting enforcement activities against illegals when a DOL, EEOC, or NLRB investigation is pending.

This seems indefensible. Why should illegal immigrants and their employers be exempt from ICE enforcement activity merely because a DOL investigation is pending? It’s almost as if the Obama administration has carved out its own “sanctuary city.”

Second, the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the DOL invests a significant amount of its budget conducting investigations and collecting back wages for illegal immigrants. This wouldn’t bother me if the budget for investigating and litigating wage and hour violations were unlimited, but it is not. By devoting resources to seeking back wages for illegal immigrants, the DOL is short-changing victims of pay act violations who are in this country legally, including American citizens.

A 2015 Report from DOL’s Office of Inspector General on WHD’s back wage distributions found that from 2010 to 2015, WHD transferred $72 million in back wages to the Treasury Department for employees it could not locate. It is likely that a large portion of these funds were collected for illegal immigrants no longer in the country or not willing to contact DOL to claim the money. Thus, even from a purely pragmatic standpoint, the DOL’s resources would be better spent pursuing back pay on behalf of citizens and lawful residents.

Third, the DOL has entered a number of partnerships with Central American, South American, and Asian Pacific Government to facilitate complaints against employers by their citizens, regardless of immigration status. I don’t think our government should be devoting resources to encouraging complaints by illegal immigrants that apparently may immunize them from visits by ICE to their workplaces.

One year into the Trump administration, these pro-illegal immigrant policies remain intact. It’s my understanding that Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta has shown no interest in undoing any of them. The issues have been raised with Acosta, but he seems bent on ignoring them. From all that appears, he’s fine with the status quo, including the government’s own “sanctuary city” program.

As was the case during the Obama administration, illegal immigrants have no better friend in high office than the Secretary of Labor.

Unfortunately, this comes as no surprise. At both the Justice Department and the DOL, Acosta has been unwilling to take action that would alienate leftists. He has raised inaction to an art form.

At DOL, far from making regulatory roll back a priority, he has taken what can euphemistically be called “a cautious approach” to controversial policy matters. For example, although he withdrew the Obama Administration’s interpretation of “independent contractors” under the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to home health registries, he has done nothing to prevent DOL employees from continuing to use it, which they do aggressively. Senator Rubio complained about this in a letter to Acosta.

Acosta is so unwilling to offend the left that he has not removed any of the Obama/Perez holdovers on the DOL’s Administrative Review Board (ARB), the influential body that issues final agency decisions for the Secretary of Labor in cases arising under a wide range of worker protection laws — more than three dozen of them. The members of this Board serve entirely at the pleasure of the Secretary. Acosta had the right to dismiss them the day he took office. Yet, four of the five remain in place (the other left a month or two ago on his own accord).

Given his track record, including his unwillingness even to cut the low-hanging fruit at the ARB, it was predictable that Acosta wouldn’t alter DOL policy favoring illegal immigrants. But what were the odds that President Trump would not disturb the aggressive pro-illegal immigrant, anti enforcement policies put in place by Barack Obama and Tom Perez? Until he appointed Acosta, they were slim indeed.



Leftist Feminist Ruth Bader Ginsburg Mouths again for Her Hillary for Public Consumtion

“Throughout my life’s experience, about sixty five  per cent of the American Jew of voting age throughout the country and where I have lived in Minnesota  support to feverishly support   leftwingers in local and national elections.  I have lived, schooled,  or worked  in their urban settlements for most of my life.   They are moneyed,  big business, lawyer world, New York Times and Washington Post and such  news  folk, along with those who  prowl around the nation’s universities selling Noam Chomsky mouthings and Howard Zinn history of our America.

And then there’s politically driven, America’s Chomsky-like  ancient, slouchy,   mouthy, crotchety,  noted President Trump hater, a leftist, often sleepy in performance,  Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Most,  nearly all judges of the U.S. Supreme Court  in my lifetime  have not, do not advertise their political favorites for public consumption…..but then there is dear Ruth, still pining for her beloved  Hillary gal……below,  expressing her disdain for those white Gentile males who have made life so impossible for Americans since the year AD1776.

P.S.  If you are out and about on Saturdays, especially during the non-winter months,  you are likely to come across black clothed males, some with beards walking along with their families along the side streets to synagogue, don’t further despair……they are Godfearing, not  Hillalryloving…..and those whom I have met, love democratic, not Democratic America, as I do.  (ghr)

Ginsburg: Election 2016 too ‘macho’ for Hillary to win

by Cheryl K. Chumley  at the Washington Times:

“Hillary Clinton has spent most of her days, post-election, pining about her loss and blaming it on the deplorables who followed President Donald Trump — the so-called sexist, misogynist atmosphere she perceives as marking her race to the White House.

Well now, here comes Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, tossing the same gender card. And not for the first time, either.

When asked by CNN’s Poppy Harlow during a Columbia University forum to clarify her previously made comments about sexism during the election year — that it was a “major factor” in determining the outcome — Ginsburg didn’t walk back, but rather ran head-first forward.

“I think it was difficult for Hillary Clinton to get by the macho atmosphere prevailing during that campaign,” Ginsburgsaid, The Hill reported. “[S]he was criticized in a way I think no men would have been criticized. I think anyone who watched that campaign unfold would answer the same way I did, yes, that sexism played a prominent role…..”


For more information on the above issue regarding Judge Ginsburg’s slouches for Hillary, please click below:



Immigration and Bankruptcy

Immigration Is Destroying the Welfare State

by Spencer P. Morrison  at American Thinker

“Many Democrats see their party as the working man’s choice.  They want to soften capitalism’s rougher edges, humanize big industry, and give the average American a fighting chance.  One may (and should) disagree with their methods, but their intentions are good and their beliefs sincere.

That is not how the party elites feel.  Their mantra is “open trade and open borders,” as Hillary Clinton told Wall Street bankers in a private speech.  Recall how the Democrats supported President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership, a “free trade” deal that would have gutted American industries.  And it is Democrats who oppose President Trump’s attempts to stop illegal immigration, which hurts America’s poor.

The Democrats don’t care about American workers.  They care about winning elections.

At this point, the chorus of “progressive” rhetoric reaches a fever pitch.  “But we need immigrants to support the welfare state!  We need immigrants to pay for Social Security!”  Saying it does not make it so.

In truth, immigration is destroying the welfare state, in America and throughout the West.  This is happening because immigrants receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes.  Of course, this is not true for every immigrant – some never collect government handouts – but it is true for the overall immigrant population.  Studies from across the Western world prove this point.

A recent and comprehensive study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that although immigration is (theoretically) revenue-neutral in America, not all immigrants are created equal.  Half of all immigrants actually receive more in government assistance than they pay in taxes, but thankfully, they are balanced out by the other half.  Specifically, immigrants who came to America for family reasons, or arrived as refugees, cost a net present value of $170,000.

Net present value is how much money the government would need to invest today, at a yield of inflation plus three percent, to pay for said immigrant’s tax deficit over the course of his expected lifetime.  Of course, the government does not do this – it spends only as it receives.  Therefore, looking at net present value creates artificially low expectations.

According to the Heritage Foundation, each non-economic immigrant more realistically costs a net of $476,000 in welfare payouts.  This does not account for any increases in government programs.  Applying this more realistic figure to the original study means that immigrants consume far more in government services than they pay for.  In fact, if immigration levels remain unchanged, those arriving over the next decade will cost American taxpayers a net of $1.9 trillion over their lifetimes.  The welfare state is already struggling; immigration will make a bad problem worse.

Another important study, conducted by Denmark’s Ministry of Finance, found that immigrants are a net drain on the nation’s welfare state.  In fact, non-E.U. immigrants and their descendants consumed 59 percent of the tax surplus collected from native Danes.  This is not surprising, since some 84 percent of all welfare recipients in Denmark are immigrants, or their descendants.  The bottom line: immigration is a net burden on Denmark.

Likewise, a study conducted by Canada’s Fraser Institute, a think-tank, found that mass immigration costs Canadian taxpayers some $24 billion per year – and this was using data from nearly a decade ago.  The number has since increased significantly, as Canada has one of the highest immigration rates in the world.

Finally, a study from the University College of London found that immigrants consume far more in welfare than they pay in taxes.  Specifically, the study looked at the Labor government’s mass immigration push between 1995 and 2011.  The study found that immigrants from the European Economic Area made a small but positive net contribution to the British economy of £4.4 billion during the period.  However, during the same period, non-European immigrants (primarily from South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa) cost the British economy a net £120 billion.

The origin-based economic differences are actually exacerbated by the U.K.’s generous welfare state: while European immigrants often left their extended families at home, to be cared for by their respective governments, immigrants from the Third World generally brought their families with them, knowing that British taxpayers would care for them.  From the immigrant’s perspective, this is a rational choice, but does it make sense for British taxpayers?  No.

For decades, Democrats campaigned on promises of cradle-to-grave care for low-income Americans, while at the same time they have allowed millions of immigrants to enter America and collect welfare – without ever having contributed a dime to the public purse.  This is not only unfair; it is unsustainable.  The welfare state is collapsing under its own weight, and mass immigration is only making this bad problem worse.




Two Hundred Years of Immigration to the Good Old USA

The following article was sent by Bruce and Arlene Taber:
This is very interesting presentation of immigration to the USA. Click on follow “link” when it comes up.
 200 Years of Immigration.
This is neat.  Also watch the lower left of the screen.
For the past 200 years where have all the people been coming from?    Watch the count grow decade by decade.