Same Party, Different House
https://fanlax.com/forum/
It set off PottyMouthMarciey's hinky meter. ...that's hot !dislaxxic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:01 am Why would ICE target businesses in "reliably Republican Mississippi?
Pottymouth is on it...
CHICKENS ON ICE RAID: THE ODD LUCK OF PECO AND KOCH FOODS [UPDATE-2].
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html‘If you’re a good worker, papers don’t matter’: How a Trump construction crew has relied on immigrants without legal status
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ ... ense-rule/
In 1996 Congress passed welfare-reform and immigration laws that sought to put more teeth in the existing public-charge rules. These measures had no lasting impact on the share of immigrants using welfare; within five years, the rate of immigration welfare use was right back where it had been before the changes. Today, some 63 percent of households headed by non-citizens use at least one welfare program, including an astonishing 80 percent of non-citizen households with children.
Some states used their own funds to cover newly ineligible immigrants, and many immigrants seemed to have naturalized to maintain access to benefits unavailable to non-citizens.
In order to minimize the impact of the Republican Congress’s 1996 changes, the Clinton administration issued guidance that barred consideration of anything other than cash benefits for purposes of determining self-sufficiency. In other words, an immigrant using food stamps, Medicaid, free school lunch, and public housing — but not cash benefits such as TANF or SSI — was to be considered self-supporting, and his welfare use would not affect his future green-card and visa applications.
Officials will now also consider SNAP (food stamps), most Medicaid, Medicare Part D subsidies, Section 8 housing, and other programs.
...there are still means-tested, taxpayer-funded welfare programs that are not covered by the new rule, such as free school lunch (and breakfast), WIC, the refundable portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Additional Child Tax Credit.
Agreed. Consistent with our values and history....but we do need to know the facts, like how much do legal immigrants are actually pay in to the economy (consumption/taxes) vs the amount spent via the social safety net.old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:04 pm The Trump Admin's proposed rule to enforce stricter "public charge" restrictions on legal immigrants is likely to be blocked by the courts, but it does force us to acknowledge the scope of public assistance available to, & consumed by legal immigrants.
IMHO -- we need legal immigrants to sustain our economy & we need to bear some costs in accepting & assimilating them, in hopes that their children will become self-sufficient, if they do not themselves.
it's unrealistic to expect newly arriving immigrants to be totally self-sufficient, but we need to at least factor in the true costs of accepting immigrants as we consider cost/benefit trade offs in how we structure our immigration laws.
Be cautious of non-specific " public assistance " % stats. Many include lifetime programs like social security & medicare (which virtually all surviving citizens end up using), which hide the true impact of immigrants on safety net programs.https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ ... ense-rule/
In 1996 Congress passed welfare-reform and immigration laws that sought to put more teeth in the existing public-charge rules. These measures had no lasting impact on the share of immigrants using welfare; within five years, the rate of immigration welfare use was right back where it had been before the changes. Today, some 63 percent of households headed by non-citizens use at least one welfare program, including an astonishing 80 percent of non-citizen households with children.
Some states used their own funds to cover newly ineligible immigrants, and many immigrants seemed to have naturalized to maintain access to benefits unavailable to non-citizens.
In order to minimize the impact of the Republican Congress’s 1996 changes, the Clinton administration issued guidance that barred consideration of anything other than cash benefits for purposes of determining self-sufficiency. In other words, an immigrant using food stamps, Medicaid, free school lunch, and public housing — but not cash benefits such as TANF or SSI — was to be considered self-supporting, and his welfare use would not affect his future green-card and visa applications.
Officials will now also consider SNAP (food stamps), most Medicaid, Medicare Part D subsidies, Section 8 housing, and other programs.
...there are still means-tested, taxpayer-funded welfare programs that are not covered by the new rule, such as free school lunch (and breakfast), WIC, the refundable portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Additional Child Tax Credit.
The Trump Administration is implementing anti-immigrant policies because Donald Trump is a racist and his top aide on immigration and asylum issues, Stephen Miller, is a racist.old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 3:21 pm Agreed. The other side of the cost benefit equation is how much they contribute to the economy & govt revenues, directly & indirectly.
I think the Trump Admin is doing this (& the ICE raids) to force the issue on immigration reform.
More strict enforcement of the laws, as written.
...& to deter the economic asylum seekers.
In addition to appeal to the base for the election.
Nope. Just 70 %.
Not necessary. Just factor it into your cost/benefit analysis when formulating immigration reform.
https://www.clasp.org/press-room/news-c ... ts-welfareold salt wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:03 pmNot necessary. Just factor it into your cost/benefit analysis when formulating immigration reform.
This source says 55 %.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wash ... households
Those are the 1997 regulations, implementing the 1996 law, that have not been enforced uniformly.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:06 pmhttps://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=1389old salt wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:03 pmNot necessary. Just factor it into your cost/benefit analysis when formulating immigration reform.
This source says 55 %. (63 % if illegals included).
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wash ... households