Trump administration may target immigrants who use food aid, other benefits

[webfact]

Trump administration may target immigrants who use food aid, other benefits

By Yeganeh Torbati

 

U.S. President Donald Trump attends the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, U.S. February 8, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration is considering making it harder for foreigners living in the United States to get permanent residency if they or their American-born children use public benefits such as food assistance, in a move that could sharply restrict legal immigration.

 

The Department of Homeland Security has drafted rules seen by Reuters that would allow immigration officers to scrutinise a potential immigrant's use of certain taxpayer-funded public benefits to determine if they could become a public burden.

 

For example, U.S. officials could look at whether the applicant has enrolled a child in government pre-school programs or received subsidies for utility bills or health insurance premiums.

 

The draft rules are a sharp departure from current guidelines, which have been in place since 1999 and specifically bar authorities from considering such non-cash benefits in deciding a person's eligibility to immigrate to the United States or stay in the country.

 

"Non-citizens who receive public benefits are not self-sufficient and are relying on the U.S. government and state and local entities for resources instead of their families, sponsors or private organisations," the document states. "An alien's receipt of public benefits comes at taxpayer expense and availability of public benefits may provide an incentive for aliens to immigrate to the United States."

 

Receiving such benefits could weigh against an applicant, even if they were for an immigrant's U.S. citizen children, according to the document.

 

"The administration is committed to enforcing existing immigration law, which is clearly intended to protect the American taxpayer," said Tyler Houlton, a DHS spokesman. "Any potential changes to the rule would be in keeping with the letter and spirit of the law – as well as the reasonable expectations of the American people for the government to be good stewards of taxpayer funds."

 

In 2016, nearly 383,000 people who would be subject to the new standards obtained permanent residence while already in the United States, according to DHS statistics. The rules would not apply to permanent residents applying for citizenship, but would apply to a wide range of people living or working in the United States, including close family members of U.S. citizens and workers employed by U.S. companies.

 

In addition, nearly 620,000 other immigrants living abroad obtained U.S. permanent residence through the State Department in 2016. If DHS publishes a new rule, the State Department will decide then whether to change its guidance, said Ashley Garrigus, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Consular Affairs.

 

U.S. immigration law has long required officials to exclude a person likely to become a "public charge" from permanent residence. But current U.S. guidelines, in place since 1999, narrowly define "public charge" to be a person "primarily dependent on the government for subsistence," either through direct cash assistance or government-funded long-term care.

 

Current guidance instructs immigration officers to look at a narrow range of public benefits in trying to determine whether someone is likely to become a burden, specifically directing officers not to consider most non-cash benefits, such as government food assistance programs or preschool programs.

 

The new rules, if adopted in their current form, would significantly change these guidelines. Under the draft rules, a person would be considered a "public charge" if they depend on "any government assistance in the form of cash, checks or other forms of money transfers, or instrument and non-cash government assistance in the form of aid, services, or other relief," according to the document seen by Reuters.

 

IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONS

 

Trump, who took a hard line on illegal immigration during the 2016 presidential campaign, has in recent months also taken aim at legal immigrants. He has advocated ending a visa lottery programme and some kinds of family-based immigration. But many of the administration's proposals would require congressional action.

 

Several immigrant advocates and current and former U.S. officials said the proposed rules could advance the administration's goals without changing U.S. law, by effectively barring lower- and middle-income people from immigrating.

 

"The big picture here is the administration is trying to accomplish by regulation the substantive changes to immigration law that it has proposed be enacted by statute," said Barbara Strack, a career DHS official who retired in January and helped draft the 1999 rules.

 

The experts and officials said they were also worried that the proposed changes would dissuade immigrants from using services to which they are entitled.

 

"It's going to scare a lot of people into yanking their children off of needed healthcare, school programs, child nutrition programs, basic sorts of subsistence-level programs that have kept the population healthy and employable," said Charles Wheeler, director of training and legal support at Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.

 

A 2017 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that 5.5 percent of immigrant households with children received cash assistance, compared to 6.3 percent of native households. Four percent of immigrant households used housing assistance, compared to five percent of native households. And about 46 percent of immigrant households used Medicaid, compared to 34 percent of native households.

 

Conservatives have long expressed concerns about non-citizens' access to public benefits, saying it is a drain on resources that should go to U.S. citizens.

 

"Efforts to limit immigrant access to these programs mostly have not been very successful," said Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favours stricter immigration policies.

 

Among the benefits singled out in the draft rule for consideration are: health insurance subsidies such as those provided by the Affordable Care Act; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP); WIC, a federal programme that feeds poor pregnant or nursing women and their children; transportation and housing vouchers; programs that help the poor pay their heating bills; and programs such as Head Start, which provides early education to low-income children.

 

Some benefits would not be considered in making the "public charge" determination under the draft regulations, including emergency or disaster relief, public health assistance for immunisations, attending public school, receiving free or reduced-price school lunches, and earned benefits such as disability insurance, Medicare and unemployment payments.

 

(Reporting by Yeganeh Torbati; Editing by Sue Horton and Ross Colvin)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-02-09

[jackh]

Great idea. The privilege of becoming a legal immigrant should come with the understanding that their responsibility to their new country involves becoming a productive member of our society. That means to contribute, not be a welfare burden. Temporary help is available, unlike most countries, but the key word is TEMPORORY.

 

People who want to enter the US with no intention of becoming a productive member of our culture and economy, are not wanted or needed here. An immigrate owes the host country everything, not the other way around.

 

[boomerangutang]

8 minutes ago, jackh said:

Great idea. The privilege of becoming a legal immigrant should come with the understanding that their responsibility to their new country involves becoming a productive member of our society. That means to contribute, not be a welfare burden. Temporary help is available, unlike most countries, but the key word is TEMPORORY.

People who want to enter the US with no intention of becoming a productive member of our culture and economy, are not wanted or needed here. An immigrate owes the host country everything, not the other way around.

Sometimes people need a helping hand while getting adjusted to a new culture/language.  In a relatively brief time, the down-and-out immigrants will get on their feet.  If you're American, you came from immigrants, (as I and Trump and Shwarzenneger and Ali, and everyone else who's not native American).  As such, your ancestors were probably having a tough time making ends meet. 

 

My dad immigrated to the US in the 1930's from Denmark. He started at a wine bottling operation, when such things were done by hand.  He went on to join the US Army, then OSS, the State Dept, then Diplomatic corps, .....and so on.   For every American other than Indians, there are stories like that.  

 

US immigrants are like the aggregate needed to make concrete harder.  Without infusions of new blood, the US would be 96% fat white dough-headed pharma-addicted depressed people.  Yes, the majority of clinically depressed people in the US fit perfectly with Trump's voting base: middle aged, white, pill-popping, gun-hugging, and getting federal and state hand-outs.

[pedro01]

3 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

Sometimes people need a helping hand while getting adjusted to a new culture/language.  In a relatively brief time, the down-and-out immigrants will get on their feet.  If you're American, you came from immigrants, (as I and Trump and Shwarzenneger and Ali, and everyone else who's not native American).  As such, your ancestors were probably having a tough time making ends meet. 

 

My dad immigrated to the US in the 1930's from Denmark. He started at a wine bottling operation, when such things were done by hand.  He went on to join the US Army, then OSS, the State Dept, then Diplomatic corps, .....and so on.   For every American other than Indians, there are stories like that.  

 

US immigrants are like the aggregate needed to make concrete harder.  Without infusions of new blood, the US would be 96% fat white dough-headed pharma-addicted depressed people.  Yes, the majority of clinically depressed people in the US fit perfectly with Trump's voting base: middle aged, white, pill-popping, gun-hugging, and getting federal and state hand-outs.

 

Nope. If you cannot support yourself in your new chosen country, you have no right to go there.

 

The US is not a charity. They need infusion of productive new blood.

 

I know quite a lot of people that moved to the US - many of them Indian nationals. In all cases, none of them have been unemployed or received any welfare. They got to the US with a job waiting and they were damn good at it.  This is what the US needs. 

[boomerangutang]

2 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

Nope. If you cannot support yourself in your new chosen country, you have no right to go there. The US is not a charity. They need infusion of productive new blood.

I know quite a lot of people that moved to the US - many of them Indian nationals. In all cases, none of them have been unemployed or received any welfare. They got to the US with a job waiting and they were damn good at it.  This is what the US needs. 

Good for them if they got to the US with a guaranteed job waiting for them.  Not everyone is so savvy or lucky.  .....and then there are low-tier jobs which Americans don't want to do, like cleaning gutters.  Some gutter cleaners can climb the social ladder and, in a relatively short time, become millionaires or scientists, or politicians, or inventors. 

 

They may also be good parents, which is a side topic, but it's a key factor to making the US a strong country.  I would venture that poor immigrants make better parents than rich Americans, and I'm basing that on decades of personal interaction with thousands of people of all social stata.

[pedro01]

1 minute ago, boomerangutang said:

Good for them if they got to the US with a guaranteed job waiting for them.  Not everyone is so savvy or lucky.  .....and then there are low-tier jobs which Americans don't want to do, like cleaning gutters.  Some gutter cleaners can climb the social ladder and, in a relatively short time, become millionaires or scientists, or politicians, or inventors. 

 

They may also be good parents, which is a side topic, but it's a key factor to making the US a strong country.  I would venture that poor immigrants make better parents than rich Americans, and I'm basing that on decades of personal interaction with thousands of people of all social stata.

 

There are no low-tier jobs Americans don't want to do. That is a myth.

 

There are simply low-tier jobs American employers want to pay slave wages for.  Pay a living wage and people will get out of bed to do it.

[mikebike]

3 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

There are no low-tier jobs Americans don't want to do. That is a myth.

 

There are simply low-tier jobs American employers want to pay slave wages for.  Pay a living wage and people will get out of bed to do it.

So you are in favour of a $15 minimum wage for public AND private workers?

[jackh]

13 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Nope. If you cannot support yourself in your new chosen country, you have no right to go there.

 

The US is not a charity. They need infusion of productive new blood.

 

I know quite a lot of people that moved to the US - many of them Indian nationals. In all cases, none of them have been unemployed or received any welfare. They got to the US with a job waiting and they were damn good at it.  This is what the US needs. 

While I agree, and most countries will refuse you unless you can prove you skill and ability worthy, there is still a little wrigglw room that we as a country can extend. I would agree to allow a vetted and skilled worker immigrant and even recieve a little help as long as I posted earlier....TEMPORARY. I can see where giving an immigrant a little leg up to get a foothold is not a bad thing. BUT, that help would extend no longer than 2 years after arriving. If they are not self sufficient by 2 years, they lose their immigrant status and subject to deportation. If they apply again, THEN they would need to prove full financial means before even being considered again and they would be disqualified for any future aid.

 

Even a "sh&^thole" country like Thailand requires as much!

 

[jackh]

7 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

There are no low-tier jobs Americans don't want to do. That is a myth.

 

There are simply low-tier jobs American employers want to pay slave wages for.  Pay a living wage and people will get out of bed to do it.

Hey, if you can't make it on 1 job....get 2. It's a free country. Get educated, better yourself, stop with the tattoos and piercings and buck up. Nobody owes you anything, so if you need more money to live, get smart and work harder. That is what America is based on. 

I worked plenty of crap jobs starting out. It's your call to stay in it or move up. You want to force me to pay you more for less, I'll just fire you and do it myself. That is the outcome of forced minimum wages.

[pedro01]

6 minutes ago, mikebike said:

So you are in favour of a $15 minimum wage for public AND private workers?

 

I think the creation of a 'slave class' with a drastically lower quality of life than the rest of society is a monumentally bad idea for social cohesion.

 

Full time jobs SHOULD pay enough for a reasonable quality of life. If not & you go the slave labor route, you are effectively redistributing wealth to the wealthy.

 

That is what immigration of cheap labor is - wealth distribution to the rich. 

 

Instead of putting this in terms of "minumum wage" left/right etc. - what you have do do is implement a system that encourages money to be spent over & over & over again. That is what drives economic growth.

[Credo]

What a tempest in a teapot.   The gov't already sets a minimum amount of money to sponsor someone and that is above the poverty line.   The gov't also does not generally allow for immigrants to receive welfare.   The rules about who can receive any kind of assistance can simply be changed, including food stamps and other programs.   

 

I mean pre-school, really?

[pedro01]

3 minutes ago, jackh said:

Hey, if you can't make it on 1 job....get 2. It's a free country. Get educated, better yourself, stop with the tattoos and piercings and buck up. Nobody owes you anything, so if you need more money to live, get smart and work harder. That is what America is based on. 

I worked plenty of crap jobs starting out. It's your call to stay in it or move up. You want to force me to pay you more for less, I'll just fire you and do it myself. That is the outcome of forced minimum wages.

 

I agree 100% - nobody owes anyone anything.

 

But your model is also very flawed. If everyone became a qualified rocket scientist, there still would not be enough jobs for them to BE rocket scientists.

 

There will always be low-tier jobs to do. The question is - what are the upsides/downsides of having (for example) parents working 80 hours a week to scrape a living? What are the upsides/downsides of creating a sub-class of non-English speaking poor people living in Ghettos?

 

The updside of cheap labor is clear - more profit for companies. The downside for society is less clear. Is it a net benefit or cost?

[isaanbanhou]

funny Trump's mother was a poor immigrant that spoke English as a second language (gaelic was her first) who immigrated to America when the Great Depression was on.  Millions of Americans were without work and receiving assistance but she was allowed in.  

 

funnier still is the photo that is used in the article above.  White hands and orange face.

[lannarebirth]

13 minutes ago, Credo said:

What a tempest in a teapot.   The gov't already sets a minimum amount of money to sponsor someone and that is above the poverty line.   The gov't also does not generally allow for immigrants to receive welfare.   The rules about who can receive any kind of assistance can simply be changed, including food stamps and other programs.   

 

I mean pre-school, really?

 

The article is about non immigrants who seek to become immigrants.

[isaanbanhou]

7 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

The article is about non immigrants who seek to become immigrants.

 

4 hours ago, webfact said:

"Non-citizens who receive public benefits are not self-sufficient and are relying on the U.S. government and state and local entities for resources instead of their families, sponsors or private organisations," the document states. "An alien's receipt of public benefits comes at taxpayer expense and availability of public benefits may provide an incentive for aliens to immigrate to the United States."

 

Receiving such benefits could weigh against an applicant, even if they were for an immigrant's U.S. citizen children, according to the document.

 

"The administration is committed to enforcing existing immigration law, which is clearly intended to protect the American taxpayer," said Tyler Houlton, a DHS spokesman. "Any potential changes to the rule would be in keeping with the letter and spirit of the law – as well as the reasonable expectations of the American people for the government to be good stewards of taxpayer funds."

 

In 2016, nearly 383,000 people who would be subject to the new standards obtained permanent residence while already in the United States, according to DHS statistics

I believe the article is about non American's legally in the US who seek to become American citizens.

 

Non immigrants are still in their home countries

 

[mikebike]

25 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

I think the creation of a 'slave class' with a drastically lower quality of life than the rest of society is a monumentally bad idea for social cohesion.

 

Full time jobs SHOULD pay enough for a reasonable quality of life. If not & you go the slave labor route, you are effectively redistributing wealth to the wealthy.

 

That is what immigration of cheap labor is - wealth distribution to the rich. 

 

Instead of putting this in terms of "minumum wage" left/right etc. - what you have do do is implement a system that encourages money to be spent over & over & over again. That is what drives economic growth.

So then, in regards to policy, what does a govt need to do to “encourage money to be spent over and over again”?

 

I certainly agree that the mega-wealthy tend to hoard, not spend, money and that all evidence suggests that a strong middle class drives spending and growth. Unfortunately current (and recent past) Govt policies seem to be the exact opposite.

[mtls2005]

Hear, hear.

 

Public Assistance ( TANF, Medicaid, Food Stamps, SSI, EITC and Housing Assistance ) should be reserved for White Americans. All others need not apply.

 

I'd wager that immigrant participation in these programs is quite small if even measurable?

 

 

 "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

 

*preference granted for Norwegians and Melania's family

 

 

Seriously, it might be simpler to just say that every immigrant must be approved by Stephen Miller?

 

http://jewishjournal.com/opinion/rob_eshman/214361/stephen-miller-meet-immigrant-great-grandfather/

 

 

 

 

[lannarebirth]

10 minutes ago, isaanbanhou said:

 

I believe the article is about non American's legally in the US who seek to become American citizens.

 

Non immigrants are still in their home countries

 

Non immigrants can certainly be in country and receiving benefits and that is whom the article refers to. Non immigrant only means you don't yet have a permanent residency or citizenship.  You are a non immigrant in Thailand. I admit the article is confusing as it jumps around between those with no immigrant status, permanent residents and citizens.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

 

There are no low-tier jobs Americans don't want to do. That is a myth.

 

There are simply low-tier jobs American employers want to pay slave wages for.  Pay a living wage and people will get out of bed to do it.

which will happen just as soon as Trump and his republican majority pass a law that imposes long sentence on employers who hire undocumented aliens. As a documented past employer of illegal aliens, I'm sure Trump understands the depth of the problem.

[mtls2005]

My read on this article is that the review of immigrants' applications, which are already extremely lengthy, might now include a prediction on how likely they might be to utilize some sort of public assistance were they be allowed to legally immigrate? This would be in addition to other proposals like skin tone, hair blondness, language capability (better than Melania? - she doesn't speak eight languages BTW), education, etc.

 

Trump properties, like the winery and Mar-a-Lago, make very liberal use of the H-2B visa program to hire temporary workers. And while legal, the Trump Organization seems to quite loosely follow the rules, especially when it comes to making a good-faith effort to hire U.S. citizens first. Temporary workers offer many, many, many benefits like slaves did in the past.

 

Donald Trump Secures 70 Visas for Foreign Workers at Mar-a-Lago

 

In order to get the visas, the club had to show that it could not find other candidates willing to take the job. It ran a classified ad in the Palm Beach Post twice in July, but as the Washington Post pointed out the ad "gave no email address, mailing address, or phone number and instructed applicants to 'Apply by fax.'"

A local nonprofit job placement agency says that it has a number of qualified candidates for the jobs.

 

"We currently have 5,136 qualified candidates in Palm Beach County for various hospitality positions listed in the Employ Florida state jobs database," a CareerSource spokesman told the Palm Beach Post on Friday. The spokesman said that Mar-a-Lago has rarely asked for its help finding employees; in 2015, it placed a request with the agency for just one banquet server.

 

http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a13387745/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-foreign-workers/

[mikebike]

15 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

which will happen just as soon as Trump and his republican majority pass a law that imposes long sentence on employers who hire undocumented aliens. As a documented past employer of illegal aliens, I'm sure Trump understands the depth of the problem.

Am I understanding correctly? You believe that jailing employers who hire undocumented aliens will raise wages?

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, pedro01 said:

There are no low-tier jobs Americans don't want to do. That is a myth.  There are simply low-tier jobs American employers want to pay slave wages for.  Pay a living wage and people will get out of bed to do it.

 

Prices for much of farm produce is set by processors and packers.  Farms - especially smaller ones - that hired well-paid locals would go out of business almost immediately.  If you really want the price of food to be subject to the whims of the free market without the subsidizing benefit of immigrants, it's got to be done by legislative mandate.  And then get ready to pay more at the supermarket.  With median household income flat in recent decades, I bet a lot of struggling families wouldn't be able to stomach that price increase.  No wonder politicians won't put such legislation on the table.

 

A Case Study of How Foreign Workers Help American Farms Grow Crops – and the Economy

 

Quote

There is virtually no supply of native manual farm laborers in North Carolina:

 

In 2011, there were on average 489,000 unemployed people in North Carolina and approximately 6,500 available farm jobs offered through the North Carolina Growers Association. Despite the fact that each of these jobs was in or next to a county with over 10 percent unemployment, only 268 of the nearly 500,000 unemployed North Carolinians applied for these jobs.

 

 

[Proboscis]

4 hours ago, jackh said:

Great idea. The privilege of becoming a legal immigrant should come with the understanding that their responsibility to their new country involves becoming a productive member of our society. That means to contribute, not be a welfare burden. Temporary help is available, unlike most countries, but the key word is TEMPORORY.

 

People who want to enter the US with no intention of becoming a productive member of our culture and economy, are not wanted or needed here. An immigrate owes the host country everything, not the other way around.

 

Whether you are in favor of the proposed new rules or against them, the point of them is not to aim them at productive new members of American culture and economy. For starters, immigrants without a green card/residency do not qualify for any unemployment benefit that is available to citizens. So, immigrants are in a position of "become productive or starve."

 

You don't have to be a left or right-wing blow-hard to see the irony here. There are plenty of anti-immigrant folks out there (both Dems and Reps) who will prefer immigrants not to be allowed to work and therefore not be productive. Plenty of Trump supporters are anti-immigrant because of what they perceive is the theft of jobs.

 

What is certain about these new rules is that they will have little effect on the level of immigration and the cost of enforcement will far outweigh any savings.

 

The irony of benefits is that few Americans even know when they are on benefits - if you think about it, if you use something for free, you get a benefit. Walk along a road is a benefit. So is Medicare. So are all the subsidies that the federal and local governments pay out. So is state school. And tax breaks for business (but they never equate that with a "handout!")

 

The very interesting part of all of this is that perfectly legal citizens and residents will have to answer a lot of questions before they get their legal entitlements. More form filling, production of proof of citizenship/residence etc. I hope they realise that the folks that brought you this are Trump and friends. And maybe we will then have a saner benefits system

[PhonThong]

5 hours ago, isaanbanhou said:

funny Trump's mother was a poor immigrant that spoke English as a second language (gaelic was her first) who immigrated to America when the Great Depression was on.  Millions of Americans were without work and receiving assistance but she was allowed in.  

 

funnier still is the photo that is used in the article above.  White hands and orange face.

My grandparents came to the U.S. in the late 20's. Don't ever remember them telling me about government assistance to the poor Irish.  They took any job they could because if you didn't work, you didn't eat...Yes, there were soup kitchens. But, that was about it. They were usually sponsored by the local churches, not the government.

 On the other hand. There are some able body Americans that should be kicked in the butt to get a job and get off of government assistance. As some on here have said, it is supposed to be temporary. But, some have been on it for years.

[ballpoint]

5 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Hear, hear.

 

Public Assistance ( TANF, Medicaid, Food Stamps, SSI, EITC and Housing Assistance ) should be reserved for White Americans. All others need not apply.

 

I'd wager that immigrant participation in these programs is quite small if even measurable?

 

 

 "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

 

*preference granted for Norwegians and Melania's family

 

 

Seriously, it might be simpler to just say that every immigrant must be approved by Stephen Miller?

 

http://jewishjournal.com/opinion/rob_eshman/214361/stephen-miller-meet-immigrant-great-grandfather/

 

 

 

 

Updated to:

 

Give me your tired and your poor

Huddled at the lamp beside the door

And if the lamp doesn't shine off your skin

We're not going to let you in

[jackh]

6 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

I agree 100% - nobody owes anyone anything.

 

But your model is also very flawed. If everyone became a qualified rocket scientist, there still would not be enough jobs for them to BE rocket scientists.

 

There will always be low-tier jobs to do. The question is - what are the upsides/downsides of having (for example) parents working 80 hours a week to scrape a living? What are the upsides/downsides of creating a sub-class of non-English speaking poor people living in Ghettos?

 

The updside of cheap labor is clear - more profit for companies. The downside for society is less clear. Is it a net benefit or cost?

"If" logic does not apply. Everyone does not become rocket scientists now nor ever. So strike that out.

 

80hrs week working does have up and downsides. So what? So does being a billionaire, doctor, lawyer, teacher......etc.

There will always be poor people all over the world. That is mostly due to their own efforts. Frankly I find it much easier to live within my means and consume what I can afford. If I can't pay cash to own it....I don't own it. But people who want to live on credit, drive a new car every year, have that new iphone are the ones ghetto bound sooner or later. That is their choice, up to them. I am not responsible for their bad decisions, drug habits, or both.

 

Particularly in the USA you can come from nothing and have it all. That is the attraction of most immigrants to the US. I say to them "Welcome", come in as a legal immigrant and prepare to bust a nut and grab that brass ring. IT IS THEIR CHOICE. 

 

Many many companies would not even exist if unreasonable minimum wages are imposed. The worker has a choice to work or not for the wage. If a company pays too little, they also go out of business because they can't hire people. Darwin takes over and does a good job of culling both the companys or workers who don't want a job. 

 

Always there are choices to be made through life. We each make them and hope it pans out. There are probably more people than you could imagine that prefer to live in a ghetto. Think about that. 

[mikebike]

43 minutes ago, jackh said:

"If" logic does not apply. Everyone does not become rocket scientists now nor ever. So strike that out.

 

80hrs week working does have up and downsides. So what? So does being a billionaire, doctor, lawyer, teacher......etc.

There will always be poor people all over the world. That is mostly due to their own efforts. Frankly I find it much easier to live within my means and consume what I can afford. If I can't pay cash to own it....I don't own it. But people who want to live on credit, drive a new car every year, have that new iphone are the ones ghetto bound sooner or later. That is their choice, up to them. I am not responsible for their bad decisions, drug habits, or both.

 

Particularly in the USA you can come from nothing and have it all. That is the attraction of most immigrants to the US. I say to them "Welcome", come in as a legal immigrant and prepare to bust a nut and grab that brass ring. IT IS THEIR CHOICE. 

 

Many many companies would not even exist if unreasonable minimum wages are imposed. The worker has a choice to work or not for the wage. If a company pays too little, they also go out of business because they can't hire people. Darwin takes over and does a good job of culling both the companys or workers who don't want a job. 

 

Always there are choices to be made through life. We each make them and hope it pans out. There are probably more people than you could imagine that prefer to live in a ghetto. Think about that. 

This rant made me think of Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura. One scene in particular.

[mrwebb8825]

On 2/9/2018 at 10:36 AM, mtls2005 said:

I'd wager that immigrant participation in these programs is quite small if even measurable?

Perhaps you should go back and read the article.

"A 2017 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that 5.5 percent of immigrant households with children received cash assistance, compared to 6.3 percent of native households. Four percent of immigrant households used housing assistance, compared to five percent of native households. And about 46 percent of immigrant households used Medicaid, compared to 34 percent of native households."

[mrwebb8825]

On 2/9/2018 at 10:00 AM, pedro01 said:

What are the upsides/downsides of creating a sub-class of non-English speaking poor people living in Ghettos?

You mean like 1 of the very first ghettos created in New York that went by the name of "Little Italy"?

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 9:24 AM, pedro01 said:

 

Nope. If you cannot support yourself in your new chosen country, you have no right to go there.

 

The US is not a charity. They need infusion of productive new blood.

 

I know quite a lot of people that moved to the US - many of them Indian nationals. In all cases, none of them have been unemployed or received any welfare. They got to the US with a job waiting and they were damn good at it.  This is what the US needs. 

Can't believe anyone posting on a Thai forum would support immigrants getting welfare. How much welfare do we get here?

Anyone requiring welfare is not an immigrant, they are a refugee.