Always "fun" to see immigrants portrayed as potential burdens on Americans, as if immigrants don't pay taxes themselves.
the proposed changes would “promote immigrant self-sufficiency and protect finite resources by ensuring that they are not likely to become burdens on American taxpayers.”
Always "fun" to see immigrants portrayed as potential burdens on Americans, as if immigrants don't pay taxes themselves.
I wonder how many people who have stories of "My grandpa came over with $20 in his pocket and made a life for his family" are happily cheering on this law saying "Fuck off if you're poor"
I wonder how many people who have stories of "My grandpa came over with $20 in his pocket and made a life for his family" are happily cheering on this law saying "Fuck off if you're poor"
So you think people should be able to immigrate to the USA and then go on public assistance? Many European countries don't allow people to become citizens unless they earn above a certain amount...
So you think people should be able to immigrate to the USA and then go on public assistance? Many European countries don't allow people to become citizens unless they earn above a certain amount or will be able to create jobs. This is simply stopping people from going to the USA and not contributing.
I think that if a someone comes to the US and falls on hard times, they shouldn't have to decide between being able to become a permanent resident in the future or being able to eat.
I think that if a someone comes to the US and falls on hard times, they shouldn't have to decide between being able to become a permanent resident in the future or being able to eat.
The idea is that it disallows or discourages people looking to come to the USA to get handouts, or at the least coming to the USA and just not contributing to society. There's already systems in...
The idea is that it disallows or discourages people looking to come to the USA to get handouts, or at the least coming to the USA and just not contributing to society. There's already systems in place to help citizens that fall on hard times (although they're not great and need to be improved).
Is this really as big a problem as it's being made out to be? How large of a burden are immigrants who do this, really, and is that burden so large that it's worth abandoning empathy for these...
Is this really as big a problem as it's being made out to be? How large of a burden are immigrants who do this, really, and is that burden so large that it's worth abandoning empathy for these people?
I don't think the "lazy people just looking for handouts" stereotype is as true or widespread as conservatives believe.
I don't think it's as true as conservatives believe, either. As the article mentions, the percentages of immigrants and natural born citizens using both cash and noncash benefits are virtually...
I don't think it's as true as conservatives believe, either. As the article mentions, the percentages of immigrants and natural born citizens using both cash and noncash benefits are virtually identical. If immigrants were really coming here to deliberately "leach" off the system to the extent that new laws and policies are necessary, surely the percentage would be much higher for immigrants, @trojanhorse and @TinyBabyOwl?
Other countries have laws in place, so I think it's reasonable for US to. People act like America had to just sacr everyone. European countries have laws in place. America can too.
Other countries have laws in place, so I think it's reasonable for US to. People act like America had to just sacr everyone. European countries have laws in place. America can too.
As the article says, the US also already has these laws in place. Here's a source that seems to be fairly non-partisan (National Conference of State Legislatures) with a rundown of the federal...
Other countries have laws in place, so I think it's reasonable for US to.
As the article says, the US also already has these laws in place. Here's a source that seems to be fairly non-partisan (National Conference of State Legislatures) with a rundown of the federal eligibility:
tl;dr seems to be in most cases, an immigrant needs "40 work quarters" aka 10 years of working here in order to qualify for public assistance.
Is there any evidence that those restrictions aren't enough, and we need more of them?
Another troubling aspect of this is (emphasis added):
The Trump administration will make it much more difficult for immigrants to come to the United States or remain in the country if they use or are likely to use
That is, this isn't just prohibiting immigrants from using social safety net programs, this is preemptively denying them immigration at all, based on some formula, or maybe just the discretion of an individual immigration official, that they might need public assistance at some point in the future.
As with all things related to Trump and immigration, you have to view this through the lens that Trump proposed cutting legal immigration in half, which was even opposed by many Republicans. Their real goal is reducing immigration, and every move they make is trying to further that goal, whether they're honest about it or not.
I find it interesting that almost always when Europe is used as an example, most Conservatives refuse to accept it as valid. Oh, their countries are smaller, they're more diverse, they aren't a...
I find it interesting that almost always when Europe is used as an example, most Conservatives refuse to accept it as valid. Oh, their countries are smaller, they're more diverse, they aren't a valid example to use for US policy. But then in this case it is, because the policy suits them.
First and foremost what really needs to be done is actually quantifying how much of a problem the "lazy immigrant mooching off welfare" is. Where are the numbers?
AFAIK, many other countries have requirements like this. But that's what made the United States exceptional. We didn't have those requirements because we were "great." “Give me your tired, your...
AFAIK, many other countries have requirements like this. But that's what made the United States exceptional. We didn't have those requirements because we were "great."
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
That quote is written on The Statue of Liberty. I suppose that might need to be removed.
I'll be honest, I don't see anything wrong with this idea. A lot of European and Asian countries already do this. Even Canada has stricter immigration laws than the USA. I like the idea of being...
I'll be honest, I don't see anything wrong with this idea. A lot of European and Asian countries already do this. Even Canada has stricter immigration laws than the USA. I like the idea of being the land of dreams for immigrants, but I don't think the USA is in a healthy enough state to take care of all of it's current citizens, let alone new non-contributing immigrants. Our healthcare could use a lot of help and our social security is running out.
The administration seems more focused on keeping immigrants out than it does on improving the country's ability to take better care of its citizens. Besides this, why are we obsessed with how much...
I don't think the USA is in a healthy enough state to take care of all of it's current citizens, let alone new non-contributing immigrants.
The administration seems more focused on keeping immigrants out than it does on improving the country's ability to take better care of its citizens.
Besides this, why are we obsessed with how much immigrants are going to "contribute"? A country isn't a company - surely we have room to care for people who need help but can't yet work.
Valuing a person's contribution to a country by their ability to earn a wage also feels a little stilted. A person on welfare is more than capable of contributing to an economy by consuming, even if in smaller amounts than wage-earners. They purchase food and services, some of which is recaptured by taxes; these are incredibly important to an economy.
This is a really good point, and something that often gets lost in a lot of discussions. There are other ways people contribute to society (such as an immigrant taking care of their grandkids so...
Valuing a person's contribution to a country by their ability to earn a wage also feels a little stilted. A person on welfare is more than capable of contributing to an economy by consuming, even if in smaller amounts than wage-earners.
This is a really good point, and something that often gets lost in a lot of discussions. There are other ways people contribute to society (such as an immigrant taking care of their grandkids so the parents can go to work). And beyond that, why is a noncitizen who otherwise qualifies for a benefit less deserving than a citizen? Does their passport mean it's okay if they go hungry?
And what about family members who are US citizens who won't be able to access these programs for fear of affecting noncitizens in their household? This doesn't just create a system where noncitizens are deemed less deserving of help— it creates one where certain citizens can't access that help either.
Canada's immigration laws have long been criticized for penalizing disabled people and their families based on this type of "public burden" criteria. They've recently loosened that criteria for...
Canada's immigration laws have long been criticized for penalizing disabled people and their families based on this type of "public burden" criteria. They've recently loosened that criteria for medical expenses, although I'm not sure if it's been done away with entirely yet.
Personally, I'd rather the US didn't create policies that that could discriminate against disabled people. (We are one of the very few countries that haven't ratified the the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but Article 18 which covers freedom of movement is still a good guideline in my mind.)
Canada has strict laws here that have long been critisized. One of the major issues is that it allows employers to basically break labour laws because immigrants are afraid of loosing their jobs...
Canada has strict laws here that have long been critisized. One of the major issues is that it allows employers to basically break labour laws because immigrants are afraid of loosing their jobs and thus loosing their chance at citizenship. This is not only inhumane and unfair to them, it actually hurts natural citizens too as it's more advantageous to hire someone who will be too scared to question labour laws and ask for fair hours and fair wages.
Those foreigners pay into the tax system to care for you. My family paid taxes on our income (and all our purchases) for 13 years before we became citizens.
Those foreigners pay into the tax system to care for you. My family paid taxes on our income (and all our purchases) for 13 years before we became citizens.
Always "fun" to see immigrants portrayed as potential burdens on Americans, as if immigrants don't pay taxes themselves.
I wonder how many people who have stories of "My grandpa came over with $20 in his pocket and made a life for his family" are happily cheering on this law saying "Fuck off if you're poor"
yes yes! And don't forget "Schrodinger's immigrant" who is simultaneously lazy and sponging off the state AND taking all our jobs.
So you think people should be able to immigrate to the USA and then go on public assistance? Many European countries don't allow people to become citizens unless they earn above a certain amount or will be able to create jobs. This is simply stopping people from going to the USA and not contributing.
I think that if a someone comes to the US and falls on hard times, they shouldn't have to decide between being able to become a permanent resident in the future or being able to eat.
The idea is that it disallows or discourages people looking to come to the USA to get handouts, or at the least coming to the USA and just not contributing to society. There's already systems in place to help citizens that fall on hard times (although they're not great and need to be improved).
Is this really as big a problem as it's being made out to be? How large of a burden are immigrants who do this, really, and is that burden so large that it's worth abandoning empathy for these people?
I don't think the "lazy people just looking for handouts" stereotype is as true or widespread as conservatives believe.
I don't think it's as true as conservatives believe, either. As the article mentions, the percentages of immigrants and natural born citizens using both cash and noncash benefits are virtually identical. If immigrants were really coming here to deliberately "leach" off the system to the extent that new laws and policies are necessary, surely the percentage would be much higher for immigrants, @trojanhorse and @TinyBabyOwl?
Other countries have laws in place, so I think it's reasonable for US to. People act like America had to just sacr everyone. European countries have laws in place. America can too.
As the article says, the US also already has these laws in place. Here's a source that seems to be fairly non-partisan (National Conference of State Legislatures) with a rundown of the federal eligibility:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/immigrant-eligibility-for-federal-programs.aspx
tl;dr seems to be in most cases, an immigrant needs "40 work quarters" aka 10 years of working here in order to qualify for public assistance.
Is there any evidence that those restrictions aren't enough, and we need more of them?
Another troubling aspect of this is (emphasis added):
That is, this isn't just prohibiting immigrants from using social safety net programs, this is preemptively denying them immigration at all, based on some formula, or maybe just the discretion of an individual immigration official, that they might need public assistance at some point in the future.
As with all things related to Trump and immigration, you have to view this through the lens that Trump proposed cutting legal immigration in half, which was even opposed by many Republicans. Their real goal is reducing immigration, and every move they make is trying to further that goal, whether they're honest about it or not.
I don't follow the point, I didn't say that the US doesn't already have these laws. I said that it's reasonable for the us to have these laws.
I find it interesting that almost always when Europe is used as an example, most Conservatives refuse to accept it as valid. Oh, their countries are smaller, they're more diverse, they aren't a valid example to use for US policy. But then in this case it is, because the policy suits them.
First and foremost what really needs to be done is actually quantifying how much of a problem the "lazy immigrant mooching off welfare" is. Where are the numbers?
AFAIK, many other countries have requirements like this. But that's what made the United States exceptional. We didn't have those requirements because we were "great."
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
That quote is written on The Statue of Liberty. I suppose that might need to be removed.
I'll be honest, I don't see anything wrong with this idea. A lot of European and Asian countries already do this. Even Canada has stricter immigration laws than the USA. I like the idea of being the land of dreams for immigrants, but I don't think the USA is in a healthy enough state to take care of all of it's current citizens, let alone new non-contributing immigrants. Our healthcare could use a lot of help and our social security is running out.
The administration seems more focused on keeping immigrants out than it does on improving the country's ability to take better care of its citizens.
Besides this, why are we obsessed with how much immigrants are going to "contribute"? A country isn't a company - surely we have room to care for people who need help but can't yet work.
Valuing a person's contribution to a country by their ability to earn a wage also feels a little stilted. A person on welfare is more than capable of contributing to an economy by consuming, even if in smaller amounts than wage-earners. They purchase food and services, some of which is recaptured by taxes; these are incredibly important to an economy.
This is a really good point, and something that often gets lost in a lot of discussions. There are other ways people contribute to society (such as an immigrant taking care of their grandkids so the parents can go to work). And beyond that, why is a noncitizen who otherwise qualifies for a benefit less deserving than a citizen? Does their passport mean it's okay if they go hungry?
And what about family members who are US citizens who won't be able to access these programs for fear of affecting noncitizens in their household? This doesn't just create a system where noncitizens are deemed less deserving of help— it creates one where certain citizens can't access that help either.
Canada's immigration laws have long been criticized for penalizing disabled people and their families based on this type of "public burden" criteria. They've recently loosened that criteria for medical expenses, although I'm not sure if it's been done away with entirely yet.
Personally, I'd rather the US didn't create policies that that could discriminate against disabled people. (We are one of the very few countries that haven't ratified the the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but Article 18 which covers freedom of movement is still a good guideline in my mind.)
Neither of these things is an issue because of immigrants though.
Canada has strict laws here that have long been critisized. One of the major issues is that it allows employers to basically break labour laws because immigrants are afraid of loosing their jobs and thus loosing their chance at citizenship. This is not only inhumane and unfair to them, it actually hurts natural citizens too as it's more advantageous to hire someone who will be too scared to question labour laws and ask for fair hours and fair wages.
This is good. We don't pay into the tax system to care for foreigners.
Those foreigners pay into the tax system to care for you. My family paid taxes on our income (and all our purchases) for 13 years before we became citizens.
foreigners in your country pay taxes too.