Trump: Migrants Will Not Get Welfare For First 5 Years

[goldenequity]

Trump: Migrants Will Not Get Welfare For First 5 Years (http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/05/trump-migrants-will-not-get-welfare-for-first-5-years/)
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/05/trump-migrants-will-not-get-welfare-for-first-5-years/

“Just this week, we announced a historic immigration bill
to create a merit-based Green Card system
that ends the abuse of our welfare system,
stops chain migration,
and protects our workers and our economy,”

“As an example, you cannot get welfare for five years when you come into our country.
You cannot just come in like in past weeks, years, and decades,
you come in immediately and start picking up welfare.

For five years, you have to say you will not be asking or using our welfare systems.”

The plan put forth by the administration
follows that of the systems deployed by Australia and Canada,
where potential immigrants are granted points based on a wide range of divisions.
Those with the highest points would qualify
for the 140,000 visas that would be distributed every year.

A candidate who wants to apply for a visa
must have at least 30 points to start the process.
Other points are distributed based on
education,
English proficiency,
a job offer,
an extraordinary achievement, an Olympic medal winner or competitive international athlete.

[Brian4Liberty]

5 years after arrival or 5 years after becoming citizens?

[tod evans]

5 years after arrival or 5 years after becoming citizens?

Can we get the same stipulation for 'single mothers' who are US citizens?

Their youngest child must be 5 before they can get free shit...:eek:

[goldenequity]

5 years after arrival or 5 years after becoming citizens?

idk. The bill has not yet been introduced afaik.
wrong.
Called the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act or RAISE Act

looking for a link....
...........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAISE_Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/354

[Brian4Liberty]

Can we get the same stipulation for 'single mothers' who are US citizens?

Their youngest child must be 5 before they can get free shit...:eek:

Free government money for single women having children. The incentive and unintended consequences are obvious. Unfortunately, the bleeding heart, "it's for the children!" left will never acknowledge that.

You are just a cold-hearted meanie.

[r3volution 3.0]

This should have been the focus from the start (rather than Teh Wall™), but anyway, immigrants are already ineligible for most welfare benefits, the main exception being public schooling. Does this bill bar them from attending public school? I hope so and seriously doubt it, as that's the sort of radical proposal not likely to come from someone who doesn't understand/respect the market economy in the first place.

[tod evans]

You are just a cold-hearted meanie.

:D

[goldenequity]

It's hopeless to try and 'read' the bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/354/text)... filled with 'amend that line/substitute this line' verbiage

[angelatc]

This should have been the focus from the start (rather than Teh Wall™), but anyway, immigrants are already ineligible for most welfare benefits, the main exception being public schooling. Does this bill bar them from attending public school? I hope so and seriously doubt it, as that's the sort of radical proposal not likely to come from someone who doesn't understand/respect the market economy in the first place.

That's not right. Once there's a citizen child in the home, the child qualifies for all benefits. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/for-illegal-immigrants-with-babies-the-anchor-pulls-in-many-directions/2015/09/20/d5d7a2f0-570d-11e5-b8c9-944725fcd3b9_story.html


They had two children, who, as U.S. citizens, qualified for a wide array of public benefits and services

So they work under the table *and* maximize welfare benefits.

[Anti Federalist]

Why start at five years?

Migrants Will Not Get Welfare For First 5 Years

Fixed.

[TheCount]

Trump's proposal to deny new immigrants welfare for 5 years is already law
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trumps-proposal-to-deny-new-immigrants-welfare-for-5-years-is-already-law/article/2626762

[TheCount]

That's not right. Once there's a citizen child in the home, the child qualifies for all benefits.

Of course they do. They're a citizen.

[Brian4Liberty]

That's not right. Once there's a citizen child in the home, the child qualifies for all benefits. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/for-illegal-immigrants-with-babies-the-anchor-pulls-in-many-directions/2015/09/20/d5d7a2f0-570d-11e5-b8c9-944725fcd3b9_story.html

So they work under the table *and* maximize welfare benefits.

I was talking to a "dreamer" a while back. He had gone back to Mexico to find a bride and brought her back to the US. They since had three kids. He was having some medical issues, and I was curious how well Obamacare was taking care of him and his family. When I asked how much he had to pay for Obamacare, he had a quizzical look on his face and said "why it's free". He was matter of fact about it, and was surprised that I didn't know that medical care is free for "poor" people. I didn't bother to ask about SNAP, but once again, it would probably be foolish to even ask.

[r3volution 3.0]

That's not right. Once there's a citizen child in the home, the child qualifies for all benefits.

The only significant welfare benefit consumed by children is public schooling. I don't have the dollar figures on front of me, but things like medical insurance for children are peanuts in comparison (they rarely require medical care). If this bill focuses on children's benefits, and doesn't deal with public schooling, it's a big bowl of nothing.

[angelatc]

The only significant welfare benefit consumed by children is public schooling. I don't have the dollar figures on front of me, but things like medical insurance for children are peanuts in comparison (they rarely require medical care). If this bill focuses on children's benefits, and doesn't deal with public schooling, it's a big bowl of nothing.

Until you can show me some numbers, I can't take this seriously.

[angelatc]

Of course they do. They're a citizens. And that's why Ron Paul wanted to end birthright citizenship.

[r3volution 3.0]

Until you can show me some numbers, I can't take this seriously.

K-12 education spending in the US, for all students, at all levels, is $560 billion per year.

Medicaid spending for children, for all children, at all levels, is $89 billion per year.

The entire food stamp program, for all persons, is $70 billion per year.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_education_spending_20.html

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/medicaid-spending-by-enrollment-group/?currentTimeframe=0&selectedDistributions=children&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22 :%22asc%22%7D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program

[Zippyjuan]

5 years after arrival or 5 years after becoming citizens?

Legal immigrants must be in the country for at least five years before they are eligible for federal government benefits- that is already the law. That dates back to the Clinton administration. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for them.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-enact-immigration-law-exists-article-1.3267898


President Donald Trump wants to enact immigration law banning welfare benefits — but it already exists

President Trump wants to get to work enacting a law prohibiting immigrants from receiving welfare benefits for at least five years after they enter into the country.

There's only one problem with his plan: it already exists.

During a rally in Iowa Wednesday night, POTUS detailed his proposal, telling the crowd that his administration would get to work on the bill "very shortly."

"I believe the time has come for new immigration rules which say those seeking admission into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years," he said.

While Trump seemed excited over the plan, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act already makes it illegal for immigrants to have access to welfare benefits during their first five years in the United States. The bill was passed in 1996 during former President Clinton's administration.

This isn't the first time Trump has seemingly come up with an idea that mimics a pre-existing notion.

[tod evans]

The only significant welfare benefit consumed by children is public schooling.

In 'homes' with immigrant single mothers one kid get's 'em on the free shit train, housing, utilities, food, medical, etc....

Whether it's state or fed I have no idea but you can bet your ass it comes from tax lucre..

The brood mare must be kept fertile in order to care for the anchor citizen then before long there's another and another......Given the Latin's sense of family the sire is probably the same for all the children and probably an 'illegal' in the eyes of the law....

Unlike the 'single mother' citizens who can collect multiple child support judgement's and free shit, the Latin family tends to be more traditional in that only one sire is involved.

Best idea is to end all federal funding of all social programs....

[Zippyjuan]

I was talking to a "dreamer" a while back. He had gone back to Mexico to find a bride and brought her back to the US. They since had three kids. He was having some medical issues, and I was curious how well Obamacare was taking care of him and his family. When I asked how much he had to pay for Obamacare, he had a quizzical look on his face and said "why it's free". He was matter of fact about it, and was surprised that I didn't know that medical care is free for "poor" people. I didn't bother to ask about SNAP, but once again, it would probably be foolish to even ask.

Perhaps he is using the emergency room for medical care. Or free clinics. Many people without health insurance get their care that way- they cannot be refused there.

https://www.acep.org/news-media-top-banner/the-uninsured--access-to-medical-care/


What are the costs of providing health care to the uninsured?

Hospitals and physicians shoulder the financial burden for the uninsured by incurring billions of dollars in bad debt or "uncompensated care" each year. Fifty-five percent of emergency care goes uncompensated, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Health care costs for both the full-year and part-year uninsured will total $176 billion dollars this year - $86 billion of which will be incurred when they are uninsured.

In the past, hospitals shifted uncompensated care costs to insured patients to make up the difference. However, cost shifting no longer is a viable option because managed care and other health plans have instituted strict price controls, leaving little margin to shift costs. More than one-third of emergency physicians lose an average of $138,300 each year from EMTALA-related bad debt, according to a May 2003 American Medical Association study.

With projections that health care costs will double and the number of uninsured will increase, the nation is faced with how it will continue to provide care for all Americans, not just the disadvantaged. Emergency departments provide an essential community service, similar to fire departments, police departments, and public utilities. The nation cannot afford to allow the emergency care system to collapse because of a lack of funding. It is too high a price to pay in terms of public health effects and human suffering.

[nikcers]

Perhaps he is using the emergency room for medical care. Or free clinics. Many people without health insurance get their care that way- they cannot be refused there.

https://www.acep.org/news-media-top-banner/the-uninsured--access-to-medical-care/

The ones who don't pay are also more likely to sue which increase costs exponentially.

[r3volution 3.0]

In 'homes' with immigrant single mothers one kid get's 'em on the free shit train, housing, utilities, food, medical, etc....

Nonetheless, the biggest ticket item is public schooling, and most of that is at the state/local level.

Total federal spending on immigrants is quite small.

Hence I'm not terribly enthused about this bill, which sounds like (I'll have to actually read it) window dressing.

...which would be par for the course for this administration's "conservatism."


Best idea is to end all federal funding of all social programs....

Certainly, and state and local too.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/


Overview of Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs

The major federal public benefits programs have always left some non–U.S. citizens out of eligibility for assistance from the programs. Since their inception, programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program), nonemergency Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and its precursor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), have been inaccessible to undocumented immigrants and people in the United States on temporary visas.

However, the 1996 federal welfare and immigration laws introduced an unprecedented new era of restrictionism. Prior to these laws’ enactment, lawful permanent residents of the U.S. generally were eligible for assistance in a manner similar to U.S. citizens. After these laws’ enactment, most lawfully residing immigrants were barred from receiving assistance under the major federal benefits programs for five years or longer. Even where eligibility for immigrants was preserved by the 1996 laws or restored by subsequent legislation, many immigrant families hesitate to enroll in critical health-care, job-training, nutrition, and cash-assistance programs due to fear and confusion caused by the laws’ chilling effects. As a result, the participation of immigrants in public benefits programs decreased sharply after passage of the 1996 laws, causing severe hardship for many low-income families who lacked the support available to other low-income families.

This article focuses on eligibility and other rules governing immigrants’ access to federal public benefits programs. Many states have attempted to fill some of the gaps in noncitizen coverage resulting from the 1996 laws, either by electing federal options to cover more eligible noncitizens or by spending state funds to cover at least some of the immigrants who are ineligible for federally funded services. Many state-funded programs, however, have been reduced or eliminated in state budget battles. Some of these cuts have been challenged in court.

In determining an immigrant’s eligibility for benefits, it is necessary to understand the federal rules as well as the rules of the state in which an immigrant resides. Updates on federal and state rules are available on NILC’s website.

IMMIGRANT ELIGIBILITY RESTRICTIONS

Categories of Immigrants: “Qualified” and “Not Qualified”

The 1996 welfare law created two categories of immigrants for benefits eligibility purposes: “qualified” and “not qualified.” Contrary to what these names suggest, the law excluded most people in both groups from eligibility for many benefits, with a few exceptions. The “qualified” immigrant category includes:

lawful permanent residents, or LPRs (people with green cards)
refugees, people granted asylum or withholding of deportation/removal, and conditional entrants
people granted parole by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for a period of at least one year
Cuban and Haitian entrants
certain abused immigrants, their children, and/or their parents
certain survivors of trafficking

All other immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, as well as many people who are lawfully present in the U.S., are considered “not qualified.”

In the years since the initial definition became law, there have been a few expansions of access to benefits beyond the qualified immigrant categories. In 2000, Congress established a new category of noncitizens— survivors of trafficking—who are eligible for federal public benefits to the same extent as refugees, regardless of whether they have a qualified immigrant status. In 2003, Congress clarified that “derivative beneficiaries” listed on trafficking victims’ visa applications (spouses and children of adult trafficking survivors; spouses, children, parents, and minor siblings of child survivors) also may secure federal benefits.

Federal Public Benefits Generally Denied to “Not Qualified” Immigrants

With some important exceptions detailed below, the law prohibits not-qualified immigrants from enrolling in most federal public benefit programs. Federal public benefits include a variety of safety-net services paid for by federal funds. But the welfare law’s definition does not specify which particular programs are covered by the term, leaving that clarification to each federal benefit–granting agency. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a notice clarifying which of its programs fall under the definition. The list of 31 HHS programs includes Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare, TANF, Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, the Child Care and Development Fund, and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Any new programs must be designated as federal public benefits in order to trigger the associated eligibility restrictions and, until they are designated as such, should remain open to broader groups of immigrants.

[TheCount]

And that's why Ron Paul wanted to end birthright citizenship.

Has nothing to do with whether or not citizens are eligible for welfare benefits. Natural born citizens are not immigrants. Saying 'immigrants receive welfare' and then pointing at citizen children is nonsensical.