Posted on 10/31/2017 11:23:48 AM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
Articles about America’s high levels of child poverty are a media evergreen. Here’s a typical entry, courtesy of The New York Times’ Eduardo Porter: “The percentage of children who are poor is more than three times as high in the United States as it is in Norway or the Netherlands. America has a larger proportion of poor children than Russia.” That’s right: Russia.
Outrageous as they seem, the assertions are true. But the lousy child-poverty numbers should come with a qualifying asterisk: Before Europe’s recent migration crisis, the United States was the only developed country consistently to import millions of very poor, low-skilled families, from some of the most destitute places on earth — especially from undeveloped areas of Latin America. Let’s just say that Russia doesn’t care to do this — and, until recently, Norway and the Netherlands didn’t, either.
Policymakers and pundits prefer silence on the relationship between America’s immigration system and poverty, and it’s easy to see why. You can allow mass low-skilled immigration, but if you do, pursuing the equally humane goal of substantially reducing child poverty becomes a lot harder.
In 1964, close to 23 percent of American kids were poor. Currently, about 18 percent of kids are below the poverty line. Other Anglo countries have lower child-poverty rates.
Up until 1980, immigrant children were better off than native born. At that point, chiefly because of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, the situation reversed. The law made “family preference” a cornerstone of immigration policy — and, as it turned out, that meant a growing number of new Americans hailing from less-developed countries and lacking skills.
The income gap between immigrant and native children widened. As of 1990, immigrant kids had poverty rates 50 percent higher than their native counterparts.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
What are the figures for native-born white children from two parent households?
The hidden driver???
The mostly unconstitutional $4 trillion government monster machine, that’s what!!
FUGEDDABOUT the debt. KILL THE BEAST!!! The “debt” will take care of itself once you kill the debtor.
The OP is also the “hidden driver” for the US’s unusually high infant mortality rates, and curiously low life expectancy.
The "poor" of the United States have a higher standard of living than the median (or higher) of most countries.
As the (possibly apocryphal) immigrant from India or Africa said, "I want to live in a country where the poorest people are the fattest."
I’d settle for the figures for native-born children from two parent households where the parents are actually married to each other.
That works.
Second, you screw around in school instead of paying attention. You walk the halls, cut classes, fail to do homework or projects, fail to study for tests. Is it a big surprise when you fail the course, and many more like it, with a work ethic like that? What kind of job, besides dealing drugs, can you qualify for which will adequately pay your bills?
Third, we allow zillions of illiterate unskilled illegal invaders to enter our country. Instead of throwing them out at a velocity of mach 10 back over our borders, we spend many millions of dollars allowing them to steal public education, including hiring bilingual teachers and buying expensive bilingual texts for them, allowing them to steal medical care, food stamps, housing subsidies, legal services, etc. Instead of taking advantage of their stolen education, most of those I've seen do not assimilate into American culture, fail to learn English well, stay within their self-made ghettos and generally stay at the poverty level, at which WE pay for their living expenses and suffer crimes committed against us by them.
No mysteries about it, then. Libtard policies at work to impoverish us all, the good Commie way. That's what Bernie would want, that's what imbeciles like Jerry Brown and Comrade DeBlASS want, etc.
Is that what YOU want for you and your family?
This is a less important contribution to poverty than Out-of-Wedlock births.
This isn’t that complicated! Of course, children are poor, they don’t have jobs!
So we should bring back child labor? The word “child poverty” is an obvious liberal tearjerker keyword.
What we call “poor” is above the median for most of the planet. Our poor live better than the average person on earth. Our poor are the first, in the history of mankind, to have obesity as their greatest heath risk. And finally, most of our poorest are going to always be is desperate circumstances due to mental health issues and their own actions (especially addictions). We give houses away to the homeless and most are homeless again within months.
What we call “poor” is above the median for most of the planet.
In Russia they have real poor, that do not see meat for months at a time, that do not have electricity, that live in tiny huts.
Before getting into the “X vs Y” arguments, can we identify what’s meant by “poor”? I’m all for helping the abject & existentially poor, but anyone living in the world’s economic 70th percentile isn’t “poor”, and anyone suffering from outright obesity (of the too-many-calories kind) isn’t “poor”.
It’s gotta be somebody’s fault.
Might as well blame whitey seems to be the recurring theme lately.
And male and female.
Thank Ted Kennedy. Another great deed done in a drunken stupor.
We can't tell you that number... and you're a racist and heteronormative bigot for asking.
/sarc
There’s a Republican President, of course poor children are multiplying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.