English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I thought to myself that much of the debgate on illegal immagration focuses on how we cannot support them with our welfare and social security systems.

Then i thought to myself... i had a problem with welfare and social security long before i cared about millions of illegals coming into our country.

If the welfare system were reformed (and i admit not having given sufficient thought as to how) in the way conservatives like myself have always wanted it to be, would we still have the same objections to amnesty?

and part 2- Does Bush's social security plan protect the program from the stress of the illegals? does it, in a sense, prohibit them from affecting american workers and give them an incentive to have proper paperwork?

i mean to set aside the obvious terrorist risk, and i do not condone illegal immigration. i for one think our current laws should be enforced and every one removed... but i want to discuss this one avenue of the debate, and use it to address our welfare system..

2006-07-18 09:33:16 · 7 answers · asked by david waterstreet 2 in Politics & Government Politics

no, i don't remember... you should explain.

(not being sarcastic, tell me about it)

2006-07-18 09:38:17 · update #1

7 answers

Welfare is funded by citizens who pay taxes. Illegal immigrants are law breakers. They should be prosecuted for their violations. People who support those illegal actors should also be prosecuted for violations of our laws.
Law abiding citizens should not be forced to pay taxes when the money is ultimately used to support illegals, their illegal acts, and those supporting the illegals.
We are, in effect, being forced to reward criminal behavior.

2006-07-18 09:42:35 · answer #1 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0 0

Clinton reformed Welfare. Remember?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform

The stage was already set by 1996. Bill Clinton, a Democratic President, had promised to "end welfare as we know it" in his State of the Union Address. The welfare reform movement reached its apex on August 22, 1996, when President Clinton signed a welfare reform bill, officially titled the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. The bill was hammered out in a compromise with the Republican-controlled Congress, and many Democrats were critical of Clinton's decision to sign the bill. In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party.
One of the bill's provisions was a time limit. Under the law, no person could receive welfare payments for more than five years, consecutive or nonconsecutive.
Another controversial change was transferring welfare to a block grant system, i.e. one in which the federal government gives states "blocks" of money, which the states then distribute under their own legislation and criteria. Some states simply kept the federal rules, but others used the money for non-welfare programs, such as subsidized childcare (to allow parents to work) or subsidized public transportation (to allow people to travel to work without owning cars).


Critics made dire predictions about the consequences of welfare reform. For instance, they claimed that the five-year time limit was needlessly short, and that those who exceeded the limit through no fault of their own might turn to begging or crime. They also felt that too little money was devoted to vocational training. Others criticized the block grant system, claiming that states would not be able to administer the program properly, or would be too motivated by cost. Finally, it was claimed that although the bill might work in a booming economy like that of the 1990s, it would cause significant harm in a recession.
Supporters held that the five-year limit was a necessity, that allowing states to experiment would result in improving welfare, and that the number of people affected by the five-year limit would be small. These controversies have not been fully resolved.
The consequences of welfare reform are still being debated today. Welfare rolls (the number of people receiving payments) dropped significantly in the years immediately after the passage of the bill. The original bill was set to expire in September of 2002; as of July, 2004, Congress had passed 7 temporary reauthorizations, generally of 3 months. Debate continued over Republican attempts to increase the amount of hours that recipients would need to work.

2006-07-18 09:36:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Neither,no reason to comprehend the two. The unlawful Immigrant has broken regulations to circulate into the rustic.Many have knowingly engaged in id robbery to apply somebody elses Social risk-free practices variety to acquire employment.They stress down wages for what have been as quickly as sturdy paying blue collar jobs,as an occasion shape. Sorry yet maximum human beings won't be able to compete with those that are keen to stay 20 to a house.This myth that they "do the jobs human beings won't do" is precisely that,A myth. Why I evaluate many abusing the Welfare equipment is glaring.they are organic leeches,regrettably i've got even generally happening a number of them in my time.it is ******* pathetic!! RWE

2016-11-02 07:19:36 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

First thing we have to change is the GOP and DNC's policies of pandering for votes. They both lie to us by acting in only their self interest and not the best interest of the country.

Welfare is an easy fix if we actually wanted to better the lives of those on it. Focus on solving the issue rather than how to keep these people poor an on the payroll til the next election.
One: crime (you can not expect a 12year old to study in such violence).
Two: education reform and require a GED for benefits.
Three: limit the time one can be on welfare but ensure their exit through job training.
Four: If one can not (or will not) keep a job one will be appointed for them (military or civil service).

BTW Amnesty is a short term fix for SS.

2006-07-18 09:46:39 · answer #4 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 0 0

I don't think it matters. Anytime illegals drain what is not theirs, we are hurt. The money they take belongs to our people. This is our tax money and our services are for our needy, disable and elderly.

Illegals simply should not be here.

2006-07-18 09:44:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Illegal immigration should not be allowed ever. Ever. That's why it's called Illegal.

2006-07-18 09:38:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

regerugged---you took the words right out of my mouth......

2006-07-18 14:56:55 · answer #7 · answered by royal_crown78 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers