Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #21
Eh? Where in the Constitution does it sat anything about rights to free stuff?Should we (and can we) condition the documents to enter the US with the intention to immigrate on a showing of enough assets to survive a certain period of time? (we cannot legally say a person legally here is not eligible for at least some kinds of public assistance)The majority, 63%, of non-citizen immigrants households in the U.S. are on at least one form of government assistance. This is far higher than the 35% of native households that receive such aid.
View attachment 232726
As Milton Friedman rightly noted, you can't have both a welfare state and open borders:
Because it is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. And you cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which every resident is promises a certain minimal level of income, or a minimum level of subsistence, regardless of whether he works or not, produces it or not. Then it really is an impossible thing.
So, if the this trend continues, we will see the type of tax donkey rioting in the U.S. that is underway in France.
A majority of “non-citizens,” including those with legal green card rights, are tapping into welfare programs set up to help poor and ailing Americans, a Census Bureau finding that bolsters President Trump’s concern about immigrants costing the nation.
In a new analysis of the latest numbers, from 2014, 63 percent of non-citizens are using a welfare program, and it grows to 70 percent for those here 10 years or more, confirming another concern that once immigrants tap into welfare, they don’t get off it.
Census confirms: 63 percent of ‘non-citizens’ on welfare, 4.6 million households
If so, how does that affect people who legitimately fear being tortured or killed and apply for asylum?
And do we want to keep giving visas to skilled workers who will work cheaper than US citizens with basically the same qualifications?
And is Trump out of his fucking mind to object to "chain immigration" when that's where a lot of our restaurants come from and immigrants get jobs? (-:
Immigrants used to be means tested. That was standard practice for decades once we had government assistance programs. Before such programs, it wasn't necessary as people either supported themselves or lived in abject misery (sometimes the two conditions were not mutually exclusive).
First, we need to stop illegal immigration and make illegals ineligible for all government assistance. If CA wants to use it's medicaid programs for illegals, then the Feds should not subsidize that amount used for such.
We cannot legally make it illegal for illegal immigrants to get some forms of public assistance. Perhaps it's possible to change that with legislation. However, it is not constitutional to deny educational and medical services even to children here illegally, and it's doubly not constitutional to deny services to "anchor babies" and the 14th is not likely going to be changed by the Sup Ct.
But we could fine Big League anyone hiring an illegal alien without taking steps to ascertain legal status. And we should do that.
But Trump's still out of his mind on chain immigration, and I think we should keep people who legitimately qualify for asylum, regardless of financial ability on their part.
Art I, sec 8, clause 1: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
i.e., the "Necessary and Proper Clause" (sometimes also called the "Elastic Clause") grants Congress a set of so-called implied powers—that is, powers not explicitly named in the Constitution but assumed to exist due to their being necessary to implement the expressed powers that are named in Article I.