What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[AZGAL]

New migration woe: Now HUNDREDS of Brazilians 'fraudulently obtaining EU passports'
CRIMINALS are selling fraudulent documents which allow Brazilians to apply for EU passports, according to shocking new reports.
By Patrick Maguire
PUBLISHED: 04:23, Wed, Jun 22, 2016 | UPDATED: 04:42, Wed, Jun 22, 2016


EU passports could be in reach of enterprising Brazilians employing the services of criminals

 

[Flopper]

You tell me-

80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S. | HuffPost

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

The origin of our Asylum and Refugee legislation goes back to WWII when millions of people sought refuge during and after the war. Some people were in fear of their lives if they returned home. The UN created the model for the refugee and asylum legislation after the war. Years later the US adopted the principals in US legislation.

The intent of the asylum part of the legislation is far different than how it is being used today. The intent of the legislation was to provide a safe refuge for those afraid of going home for people residing in the US or seeking entry. It certainly was not drafted to encourage people to sneak into the country to apply. At a minimum, the law should be changed so people can apply at a port of entry for asylum without actually violating our boarders. Better yet, allow them to submit the 12 page petition from their home country and schedule the initial fear test interview at a US Consultant. Having these people travel thousand of miles to our border and being put in detention is nuts. 60% of them are going to be turned away.

 

[AZGAL]

The parents used to send the children in a separated manner on a long dangerous trip to the USA... On La Bestia train through Mexico...

 

[AZGAL]

YES At a minimum, the law should be changed so people can apply at a port of entry for asylum

 

[Flopper]

And the size our economy would drop by over 4 trillion dollars, worst yet our prospects for future growth would also drop leading to higher interest on the national debt and 1/3 less people to pay it. In short America would become a third rate economic power behind both China and the EU.

Keep taking these illegals in, and we will get there faster than you think.

Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it. Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS. Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year.

Then we have the welfare people; those who don't want to work or work part-time. We need much more oversight on those people. Last year, over 42 million people were on food stamps. Now for the longest time, you on the left told us it was because of their inability to find full-time work. Or you said, they were working lower wage jobs. But a lot of these people only work part-time to stay on the program.

I have these HUD people living next door to me in the suburbs. OUR TAX DOLLARS pay for them to live here instead of lower priced housing in the inner-city. The only question I have is......why?

When I get up for work in the morning, their four cars are sitting there. If I pass by my house during work, the cars are sitting there. When I get home from work, the cars are sitting there. The only time those cars move is after 5:00 pm. And then they are coming home at 11:00, 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning drunk as a skunk setting off their car alarms waking up us working people.

Two of the adults in the home are so fat they waddle when they walk. They throw parties here and invite all their lowlife friends for a BBQ; probably food bought with our tax dollars.

There are many things we can do to avoid bringing in third world people that will turn us into a third world country given enough time.

The number on food stamps in 2017 dropped to 40.3 million, the lowest since 2010 and projected to drop to 38.8 in 2018. Over 60 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities.

SNAP is probably one of the best welfare programs. It is the least likely to discourage employment. Unlike Medicaid where if you go a dollar over the limit, you lose all benefits, SNAP benefits decrease gradually as income increases. Unlike many welfare programs it considers both current income and assets for eligibility, so you're very unlike to find a wealthy person on SNAP. Currently the net asset limits are $2250 and $3500 for the elderly or disabled. Lastly it is designed to serve poor families, the disabled, and the elderly. Individuals who are over age 18 and under 50 are limited to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years. Like all federal programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

In regard to Planned Parenthood, 95% of federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood are distributed by state Medicaid. Of those funds, only 3% go to abortion services but not specifically abortion. 75% go to diagnosis and treatment of STD/STIs and Contraception. If the federal government cut funding, those funds would be reduced in state Medicaid funding. Over 90% of those funds would have to be made up by the state because Obamacare requires all those services funded by Planned Parenthood be covered except the 3% that goes to abortion services. The bottom line is cutting funds would have little impact on Planned Parenthood. This topic is just a political football the two sides kick around to appeal to voters.

NPR does not receive any direct federal funding. PBS is member station supported. The only federal funding that either receives are from small competitive grants.

That's ridiculous. HTF does one separate money going to an entity? Nobody can prove our money didn't go to abortions.

It's kind of like when they were trying to pass the lottery here many years ago. It was written that proceeds for the lottery will go to fund Ohio schools. Well.........after it passed, the proceeds did go to the school, but they never benefited because they cut state funds so the schools really didn't see one dime.

When you collect a slew of money from various places, it literally goes into one pile, and then you sort out where the money goes. Yes, you can do some paperwork shuffling to make the claim tax dollars are not going to abortions, but they actually are.

And yes, food stamps does discourage work. I make deliveries and pickups to our customers, some of whom use temporary services. When they ask the temps if they can work overtime, most of them refuse. Why? Because after making X amount of dollars, it comes out out of their food stamp stipend, so it's like working for free.

A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children. The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40. His girlfriend didn't work at all. When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.

I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem. I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere. It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.

That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them. A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up. They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year. Why didn't they consider my solution? She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.

I didn't say food stamps did not discourage employment. I said, "It is the least likely to discourage employment." Any funds a person receives that makes it possible not to work, discourages employment which include unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, Private
Retirement, and even private savings, and of course social welfare programs.

Of course the only one of concern for most people is social welfare programs because it's tax payer funded. However, any program that encourages productive workers to leave the workforce is not necessary good and in many cases bad.

Well that's what it does.

Republicans cut funding for FS. Nobody starved to death. Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents. In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.

Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps. If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs. It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem. As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.

A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers. He said that most of them live with others of like kind. They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash. They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money. If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.

Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children. In general, they are the least productive people in society. And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Keep taking these illegals in, and we will get there faster than you think.

Perhaps if we ever faced the situation you imagine, we would actually do something about it. Stop funding Planned Parenthood, stop funding NPR, PBS. Open Secrets has a litany of wasteful spending that goes on every year.

Then we have the welfare people; those who don't want to work or work part-time. We need much more oversight on those people. Last year, over 42 million people were on food stamps. Now for the longest time, you on the left told us it was because of their inability to find full-time work. Or you said, they were working lower wage jobs. But a lot of these people only work part-time to stay on the program.

I have these HUD people living next door to me in the suburbs. OUR TAX DOLLARS pay for them to live here instead of lower priced housing in the inner-city. The only question I have is......why?

When I get up for work in the morning, their four cars are sitting there. If I pass by my house during work, the cars are sitting there. When I get home from work, the cars are sitting there. The only time those cars move is after 5:00 pm. And then they are coming home at 11:00, 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning drunk as a skunk setting off their car alarms waking up us working people.

Two of the adults in the home are so fat they waddle when they walk. They throw parties here and invite all their lowlife friends for a BBQ; probably food bought with our tax dollars.

There are many things we can do to avoid bringing in third world people that will turn us into a third world country given enough time.

The number on food stamps in 2017 dropped to 40.3 million, the lowest since 2010 and projected to drop to 38.8 in 2018. Over 60 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities.

SNAP is probably one of the best welfare programs. It is the least likely to discourage employment. Unlike Medicaid where if you go a dollar over the limit, you lose all benefits, SNAP benefits decrease gradually as income increases. Unlike many welfare programs it considers both current income and assets for eligibility, so you're very unlike to find a wealthy person on SNAP. Currently the net asset limits are $2250 and $3500 for the elderly or disabled. Lastly it is designed to serve poor families, the disabled, and the elderly. Individuals who are over age 18 and under 50 are limited to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years. Like all federal programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

In regard to Planned Parenthood, 95% of federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood are distributed by state Medicaid. Of those funds, only 3% go to abortion services but not specifically abortion. 75% go to diagnosis and treatment of STD/STIs and Contraception. If the federal government cut funding, those funds would be reduced in state Medicaid funding. Over 90% of those funds would have to be made up by the state because Obamacare requires all those services funded by Planned Parenthood be covered except the 3% that goes to abortion services. The bottom line is cutting funds would have little impact on Planned Parenthood. This topic is just a political football the two sides kick around to appeal to voters.

NPR does not receive any direct federal funding. PBS is member station supported. The only federal funding that either receives are from small competitive grants.

That's ridiculous. HTF does one separate money going to an entity? Nobody can prove our money didn't go to abortions.

It's kind of like when they were trying to pass the lottery here many years ago. It was written that proceeds for the lottery will go to fund Ohio schools. Well.........after it passed, the proceeds did go to the school, but they never benefited because they cut state funds so the schools really didn't see one dime.

When you collect a slew of money from various places, it literally goes into one pile, and then you sort out where the money goes. Yes, you can do some paperwork shuffling to make the claim tax dollars are not going to abortions, but they actually are.

And yes, food stamps does discourage work. I make deliveries and pickups to our customers, some of whom use temporary services. When they ask the temps if they can work overtime, most of them refuse. Why? Because after making X amount of dollars, it comes out out of their food stamp stipend, so it's like working for free.

A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children. The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40. His girlfriend didn't work at all. When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.

I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem. I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere. It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.

That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them. A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up. They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year. Why didn't they consider my solution? She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.

I didn't say food stamps did not discourage employment. I said, "It is the least likely to discourage employment." Any funds a person receives that makes it possible not to work, discourages employment which include unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, Private
Retirement, and even private savings, and of course social welfare programs.

Of course the only one of concern for most people is social welfare programs because it's tax payer funded. However, any program that encourages productive workers to leave the workforce is not necessary good and in many cases bad.

Well that's what it does.

Republicans cut funding for FS. Nobody starved to death. Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents. In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.

Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps. If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs. It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem. As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.

A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers. He said that most of them live with others of like kind. They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash. They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money. If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.

Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children. In general, they are the least productive people in society. And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week.

The would if they were hungry.

And how does an elderly person collecting SS get food stamps anyway? If they can get food stamps, everybody on SS are eligible for food stamps.

 

[Flopper]

YES At a minimum, the law should be changed so people can apply at a port of entry for asylum

Why not in their home country? When they arrive at a port entry, they are instructed to tell the inspector they are afraid to return to their home. The inspector or another agent will administer a short test along with several questions to determine in his opinion that the person meets the requirements of fear to return home. If he denies the plea which happens in about half the cases, the person either goes home, tries to enter illegally, or in rare cases hires a lawyer. This could all be done in the home country which would eliminate a lot of the problems we are having now. If the person passes the test, then he or she could come to the US either on a visa or be put in detention while waiting to plead their case before and immigration judge. The person would not have to have their children with them.

 

[MaryL]

I stand back and take a deep breath of air after reading some of the posts on this thread. I am flustered and just left speechless after reading many of the posts here. I have dealt with this issue for 30 years. I have seen how it mutated from angry people strongly FOR immigration law enforcement (those goddamed wettbacks) to today, we have OTHER angry people strongly against immigration law enforcement (those poor wretched "undocumented " Immigrants)

Something is wrong here. I see entire industries given over to hiring people of questionable status. And letting American employees go. And that change is remarkable. And added to that, I see camps of homeless people (families too) living camps. These are Americans, white, black or god knows whom else. And it doesn't matter. Many of them displaced by cheap labor of these so called "New undocumented immigrants" liberals tout so much.

So what about the people displaced by these illegals? It's weird that certain people only see what benefit undocumented immigrants DO, and minimize if not even blame the people hurt by illegals. I can't apologize for being angry about the unfairness of this, and the excuses just aren't valid.

 

[Flopper]

The number on food stamps in 2017 dropped to 40.3 million, the lowest since 2010 and projected to drop to 38.8 in 2018. Over 60 percent of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities.

SNAP is probably one of the best welfare programs. It is the least likely to discourage employment. Unlike Medicaid where if you go a dollar over the limit, you lose all benefits, SNAP benefits decrease gradually as income increases. Unlike many welfare programs it considers both current income and assets for eligibility, so you're very unlike to find a wealthy person on SNAP. Currently the net asset limits are $2250 and $3500 for the elderly or disabled. Lastly it is designed to serve poor families, the disabled, and the elderly. Individuals who are over age 18 and under 50 are limited to three months of SNAP benefits out of every three years. Like all federal programs, undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

In regard to Planned Parenthood, 95% of federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood are distributed by state Medicaid. Of those funds, only 3% go to abortion services but not specifically abortion. 75% go to diagnosis and treatment of STD/STIs and Contraception. If the federal government cut funding, those funds would be reduced in state Medicaid funding. Over 90% of those funds would have to be made up by the state because Obamacare requires all those services funded by Planned Parenthood be covered except the 3% that goes to abortion services. The bottom line is cutting funds would have little impact on Planned Parenthood. This topic is just a political football the two sides kick around to appeal to voters.

NPR does not receive any direct federal funding. PBS is member station supported. The only federal funding that either receives are from small competitive grants.

That's ridiculous. HTF does one separate money going to an entity? Nobody can prove our money didn't go to abortions.

It's kind of like when they were trying to pass the lottery here many years ago. It was written that proceeds for the lottery will go to fund Ohio schools. Well.........after it passed, the proceeds did go to the school, but they never benefited because they cut state funds so the schools really didn't see one dime.

When you collect a slew of money from various places, it literally goes into one pile, and then you sort out where the money goes. Yes, you can do some paperwork shuffling to make the claim tax dollars are not going to abortions, but they actually are.

And yes, food stamps does discourage work. I make deliveries and pickups to our customers, some of whom use temporary services. When they ask the temps if they can work overtime, most of them refuse. Why? Because after making X amount of dollars, it comes out out of their food stamp stipend, so it's like working for free.

A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children. The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40. His girlfriend didn't work at all. When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.

I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem. I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere. It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.

That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them. A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up. They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year. Why didn't they consider my solution? She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.

I didn't say food stamps did not discourage employment. I said, "It is the least likely to discourage employment." Any funds a person receives that makes it possible not to work, discourages employment which include unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, Private
Retirement, and even private savings, and of course social welfare programs.

Of course the only one of concern for most people is social welfare programs because it's tax payer funded. However, any program that encourages productive workers to leave the workforce is not necessary good and in many cases bad.

Well that's what it does.

Republicans cut funding for FS. Nobody starved to death. Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents. In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.

Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps. If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs. It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem. As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.

A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers. He said that most of them live with others of like kind. They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash. They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money. If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.

Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children. In general, they are the least productive people in society. And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week.

The would if they were hungry.

And how does an elderly person collecting SS get food stamps anyway? If they can get food stamps, everybody on SS are eligible for food stamps.

There are lot's people who don't qualify for S.S., about 4% and there are many whose benefits are only a hundred or so a month. The minimum monthly SS benefit is about $40.
The purpose of SNAP is to prevent hunger not to feed starving people. Hungry people are 2.9 times more likely to be in poor health which means a bigger healthcare bill for the nation. They are also 4 times more likely to have severe emotional problems which leads to poor performance in school and on job. Hunger has also been linked to both petty and serious crimes.

The idea that people will worker harder if they are hungry has been proven to be false.

 

[MaryL]

Let's step back and take deep deep breath. Relax and go to your happy place. Close your eyes and relax. Ok, is your chi centered now? Um I hate to break it to you fine and beautiful people, but here in America we have something called Child welfare services, and other such agencies. And well, they take children away from their parents every minute of the day of the week of the year.Yep, it happens all the time. Kids weeping, the anguish and despair of the parents. But THAT ain't showin' up on ABC, CBS or NBC nightly news. So what all of sudden got into the media to make this issue a humanitarian crisis all of a sudden? Oh,the humanity!

 

[Flopper]

I stand back and take a deep breath of air after reading some of the posts on this thread. I am flustered and just left speechless after reading many of the posts here. I have dealt with this issue for 30 years. I have seen how it mutated from angry people strongly FOR immigration law enforcement (those goddamed wettbacks) to today, we have OTHER angry people strongly against immigration law enforcement (those poor wretched "undocumented " Immigrants)

Something is wrong here. I see entire industries given over to hiring people of questionable status. And letting American employees go. And that change is remarkable. And added to that, I see camps of homeless people (families too) living camps. These are Americans, white, black or god knows whom else. And it doesn't matter. Many of them displaced by cheap labor of these so called "New undocumented immigrants" liberals tout so much.

So what about the people displaced by these illegals? It's weird that certain people only see what benefit undocumented immigrants DO, and minimize if not even blame the people hurt by illegals. I can't apologize for being angry about the unfairness of this, and the excuses just aren't valid.

There is no way to prove that undocumented immigrants take away jobs from American workers to any degree. I say that because they are undocumented. We don't really how many there are in the US, most reliable sources say 9 to 12 million. We don't know what their unemployment rate is. Some say 3%, 5%, and 10%.

However there are some pretty good estimates from census surveys. Assuming there are 10 million undocumented immigrants and 4.5 million are under the age of 16. Then we most probably have an undocumented potential work force of 5.5 million. Our total workforce is 156 million. So that means undocumented immigrants are about 3.5% of our workforce. What we don't know is what percent are employed and would Americans do the work they are doing.

The dept agriculture estimates that there are over 2 million undocumented immigrants doing farm work and there are 2 job for every worker so I think it's safe to assume that undocumented immigrants are not taking jobs from Americans on our farms.

I think anything more than this would be just a guess but it seems to mean that we are talking about a potential undocumented workforce outside of farm labor of only 2.2%. When you consider that many of these people are working for relatives I don't think there is any threat to the the American Workforce which is 156 million.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's ridiculous. HTF does one separate money going to an entity? Nobody can prove our money didn't go to abortions.

It's kind of like when they were trying to pass the lottery here many years ago. It was written that proceeds for the lottery will go to fund Ohio schools. Well.........after it passed, the proceeds did go to the school, but they never benefited because they cut state funds so the schools really didn't see one dime.

When you collect a slew of money from various places, it literally goes into one pile, and then you sort out where the money goes. Yes, you can do some paperwork shuffling to make the claim tax dollars are not going to abortions, but they actually are.

And yes, food stamps does discourage work. I make deliveries and pickups to our customers, some of whom use temporary services. When they ask the temps if they can work overtime, most of them refuse. Why? Because after making X amount of dollars, it comes out out of their food stamp stipend, so it's like working for free.

A few years ago I was renting to an unmarried couple with two children. The guy had a full time job but refused to work one hour past 40. His girlfriend didn't work at all. When problems developed with rent, I asked them to discuss the situation at my apartment.

I knew their circumstance and came up with a perfect solution to their money problem. I suggested that since he doesn't work weekends, he can watch the kids and she can get a part-time job somewhere. It would not only help them with rent, but other money problems they were experiencing.

That didn't go over very well, and I had to evict them. A good rent is hard to come by these days over here and across the country, and now he has this eviction on his record that any potential landlord can look up. They lost their apartment, and I had his wages garnished for a year. Why didn't they consider my solution? She was getting $280.00 a month in food stamps.

I didn't say food stamps did not discourage employment. I said, "It is the least likely to discourage employment." Any funds a person receives that makes it possible not to work, discourages employment which include unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, Private
Retirement, and even private savings, and of course social welfare programs.

Of course the only one of concern for most people is social welfare programs because it's tax payer funded. However, any program that encourages productive workers to leave the workforce is not necessary good and in many cases bad.

Well that's what it does.

Republicans cut funding for FS. Nobody starved to death. Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents. In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.

Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps. If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs. It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem. As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.

A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers. He said that most of them live with others of like kind. They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash. They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money. If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.

Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children. In general, they are the least productive people in society. And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week.

The would if they were hungry.

And how does an elderly person collecting SS get food stamps anyway? If they can get food stamps, everybody on SS are eligible for food stamps.

There are lot's people who don't qualify for S.S., about 4% and there are many whose benefits are only a hundred or so a month. The minimum monthly SS benefit is about $40.
The purpose of SNAP is to prevent hunger not to feed starving people. Hungry people are 2.9 times more likely to be in poor health which means a bigger healthcare bill for the nation. They are also 4 times more likely to have severe emotional problems which leads to poor performance in school and on job. Hunger has also been linked to both petty and serious crimes.

The idea that people will worker harder if they are hungry has been proven to be false.

I see, so why is their SS payment so low? Could it be because they never really worked in their lives? And if so, it's to be our problem now?

I don't want to hear about disabilities because you can apply for that, and everybody gets the same. If you are denied disability, it means the government feels you are mentally or physically capable of holding a job.

So now we need to draw sympathy because these lifelong government freeloaders are older now.

 

[Flopper]

Let's step back and take deep deep breath. Relax and go to your happy place. Close your eyes and relax. Ok, is your chi centered now? Um I hate to break it to you fine and beautiful people, but here in America we have something called Child welfare services, and other such agencies. And well, they take children away from their parents every minute of the day of the week of the year.Yep, it happens all the time. Kids weeping, the anguish and despair of the parents. But THAT ain't showin' up on ABC, CBS or NBC nightly news. So what all of sudden got into the media to make this issue a humanitarian crisis all of a sudden? Oh,the humanity!

The child welfare agencies my sister works with can locate any child within an hour. Why can't the feds. Some of the mothers that have been released from detention are out looking for their kids. One mother has completed all 45 pages of documentation for ICE provided fingerprints and after two weeks still does not have her 9 year old son. Only after hiring a lawyer and entering suit has she been able to find the child, sick in a government contracted facility in Chicago. That is not right. The Trump administration should have had a plan to reunited parents and children before they took them away.

 

[Flopper]

I didn't say food stamps did not discourage employment. I said, "It is the least likely to discourage employment." Any funds a person receives that makes it possible not to work, discourages employment which include unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, Private
Retirement, and even private savings, and of course social welfare programs.

Of course the only one of concern for most people is social welfare programs because it's tax payer funded. However, any program that encourages productive workers to leave the workforce is not necessary good and in many cases bad.

Well that's what it does.

Republicans cut funding for FS. Nobody starved to death. Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents. In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.

Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps. If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs. It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem. As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.

A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers. He said that most of them live with others of like kind. They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash. They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money. If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.

Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children. In general, they are the least productive people in society. And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week.

The would if they were hungry.

And how does an elderly person collecting SS get food stamps anyway? If they can get food stamps, everybody on SS are eligible for food stamps.

There are lot's people who don't qualify for S.S., about 4% and there are many whose benefits are only a hundred or so a month. The minimum monthly SS benefit is about $40.
The purpose of SNAP is to prevent hunger not to feed starving people. Hungry people are 2.9 times more likely to be in poor health which means a bigger healthcare bill for the nation. They are also 4 times more likely to have severe emotional problems which leads to poor performance in school and on job. Hunger has also been linked to both petty and serious crimes.

The idea that people will worker harder if they are hungry has been proven to be false.

I see, so why is their SS payment so low? Could it be because they never really worked in their lives? And if so, it's to be our problem now?

I don't want to hear about disabilities because you can apply for that, and everybody gets the same. If you are denied disability, it means the government feels you are mentally or physically capable of holding a job.

So now we need to draw sympathy because these lifelong government freeloaders are older now.

Here are the main groups that get little or no social security and it's not because they don't work. Many of these are women who have worked most of their life raising kids.

The three main groups of people who never receive Social Security benefits include infrequent workers (44.3%) who do not have sufficient earnings to qualify for the benefits, immigrants who arrived in the U.S. at 50 or older (37.3%) and therefore haven’t worked long enough to qualify for the benefits, and non-covered workers (11.4%), such as state and local government employees. A little less than 7% of “never beneficiaries” were individuals who were expected to get Social Security benefits, but died before receiving them, according to a 2015 Social Security Administration report

These Americans will never get Social Security benefits — and we don’t mean millennials

 

[WEATHER53]

A terrible human cost has been wrought
The loss of the importance of law. The loss of the importance of truth
If you and your kid want to come and live with us in the USA then it is up to You to work it out. It’s not up to us to ignore our laws and pretzel twist ourselves to make it happen
You and you kid want up come to live with me and lap it up?
It’s you who is to be humble, obedient and grateful ; not me or citizens of the USA
And libbies, stop trying to be Mother
of the planet when you own constituency runs away from the family he created over and over.

 

[WEATHER53]

Let's step back and take deep deep breath. Relax and go to your happy place. Close your eyes and relax. Ok, is your chi centered now? Um I hate to break it to you fine and beautiful people, but here in America we have something called Child welfare services, and other such agencies. And well, they take children away from their parents every minute of the day of the week of the year.Yep, it happens all the time. Kids weeping, the anguish and despair of the parents. But THAT ain't showin' up on ABC, CBS or NBC nightly news. So what all of sudden got into the media to make this issue a humanitarian crisis all of a sudden? Oh,the humanity!

The child welfare agencies my sister works with can locate any child within an hour. Why can't the feds. Some of the mothers that have been released from detention are out looking for their kids. One mother has completed all 45 pages of documentation for ICE provided fingerprints and after two weeks still does not have her 9 year old son. Only after hiring a lawyer and entering suit has she been able to find the child, sick in a government contracted facility in Chicago. That is not right. The Trump administration should have had a plan to reunited parents and children before they took them away.

How about don’t break the law with your child in tow?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Did you all ever figure this stuff out? It's up to over 4000 replies, and I'm not reading al of that. Help a feller out.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well that's what it does.

Republicans cut funding for FS. Nobody starved to death. Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents. In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.

Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps. If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs. It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem. As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.

A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers. He said that most of them live with others of like kind. They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash. They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money. If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.

Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children. In general, they are the least productive people in society. And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week.

The would if they were hungry.

And how does an elderly person collecting SS get food stamps anyway? If they can get food stamps, everybody on SS are eligible for food stamps.

There are lot's people who don't qualify for S.S., about 4% and there are many whose benefits are only a hundred or so a month. The minimum monthly SS benefit is about $40.
The purpose of SNAP is to prevent hunger not to feed starving people. Hungry people are 2.9 times more likely to be in poor health which means a bigger healthcare bill for the nation. They are also 4 times more likely to have severe emotional problems which leads to poor performance in school and on job. Hunger has also been linked to both petty and serious crimes.

The idea that people will worker harder if they are hungry has been proven to be false.

I see, so why is their SS payment so low? Could it be because they never really worked in their lives? And if so, it's to be our problem now?

I don't want to hear about disabilities because you can apply for that, and everybody gets the same. If you are denied disability, it means the government feels you are mentally or physically capable of holding a job.

So now we need to draw sympathy because these lifelong government freeloaders are older now.

Here are the main groups that get little or no social security and it's not because they don't work. Many of these are women who have worked most of their life raising kids.

The three main groups of people who never receive Social Security benefits include infrequent workers (44.3%) who do not have sufficient earnings to qualify for the benefits, immigrants who arrived in the U.S. at 50 or older (37.3%) and therefore haven’t worked long enough to qualify for the benefits, and non-covered workers (11.4%), such as state and local government employees. A little less than 7% of “never beneficiaries” were individuals who were expected to get Social Security benefits, but died before receiving them, according to a 2015 Social Security Administration report

These Americans will never get Social Security benefits — and we don’t mean millennials

So let's go through this:

Infrequent workers. WTF is an infrequent worker anyway? Is it somebody that worked once in a while when they felt like it?

Immigrants. Okay, so what you're saying is that we have yet another problem by allowing immigrants into this country. I'll keep that in mind for future discussions on immigration.

State and local government employees. Why would state or local government employees be denied contributing to our Social Security plan like every other working American? Could it be they had their own program setup; a program that exceeds what SS pays out? And if not, why are not all government employees eligible for food stamps? Why only 11.4%?

Raising children. If the woman raising the children is married, then he is supposed to continue support of his wife when he retires. If not, that's his fault. If he passes away, she gets his SS check.

If she was single her entire life, WTF is she having children she couldn't afford to support? Okay, so let's say a married woman has a family of two children, something happens to her husband, and he didn't have a big SS account. If she was 22 years old when she had her last child, that child was in school all day when she turned 27 years old. Certainly she could have contributed a good amount of SS contributions between 27 and 65 years old. So that just doesn't make sense. There is something left out of that figure.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Only after hiring a lawyer and entering suit has she been able to find the child, sick in a government contracted facility in Chicago.

Great. So if it's not bad enough they broke our laws and brought children with them, they are suing us on top of it.

 

[Slyhunter]

I didn't say food stamps did not discourage employment. I said, "It is the least likely to discourage employment." Any funds a person receives that makes it possible not to work, discourages employment which include unemployment insurance, disability insurance, Social Security, Private
Retirement, and even private savings, and of course social welfare programs.

Of course the only one of concern for most people is social welfare programs because it's tax payer funded. However, any program that encourages productive workers to leave the workforce is not necessary good and in many cases bad.

Well that's what it does.

Republicans cut funding for FS. Nobody starved to death. Republican run states made requirements to receive food stamps if you didn't have dependents. In Maine for instance, most of those people dropped out of the program.

Productive people have no use for programs like food stamps. If their income is inadequate for their lifestyle, they get higher paying jobs, work more hours, or even take on two jobs. It's the people with no inclination to work that's the problem. As long as they have just enough to get by, that's what they do using any means.

A friend of mine works at a place that has many temp workers. He said that most of them live with others of like kind. They all combine their cards, get what they need to eat, and sell the rest of the cards for cash. They have no need to work more hours or strive to make more money. If they are working let's say 20 hours a week bringing in X amount of money, it sure beats working 40 hours a week for just a little bit more money.

Keep mind that 60% of those that receive food stamps are elderly, disabled or children. In general, they are the least productive people in society. And they are certainly not lightly to take a 2nd job or work an extra 20 hours a week.

The would if they were hungry.

And how does an elderly person collecting SS get food stamps anyway? If they can get food stamps, everybody on SS are eligible for food stamps.

There are lot's people who don't qualify for S.S., about 4% and there are many whose benefits are only a hundred or so a month. The minimum monthly SS benefit is about $40.
The purpose of SNAP is to prevent hunger not to feed starving people. Hungry people are 2.9 times more likely to be in poor health which means a bigger healthcare bill for the nation. They are also 4 times more likely to have severe emotional problems which leads to poor performance in school and on job. Hunger has also been linked to both petty and serious crimes.

The idea that people will worker harder if they are hungry has been proven to be false.

I see, so why is their SS payment so low? Could it be because they never really worked in their lives? And if so, it's to be our problem now?

I don't want to hear about disabilities because you can apply for that, and everybody gets the same. If you are denied disability, it means the government feels you are mentally or physically capable of holding a job.

So now we need to draw sympathy because these lifelong government freeloaders are older now.

I applied for disability. I'm bipolar. I also have arthritis, pre-diabetic, recovered rectum cancer patient, emphysema even though I quit smoking over 20 years ago, and suffer from diabetic nerve damage in my toes and fingers. They turned me down because I had a job. I can't afford to sit around for 6-months to 3-years waiting for approval from the disability office without a job. Unemployment doesn't last that long. I'm responsible for about 20% of my family's support and as little as it is my family can't make it without it. My mother is retired and my sister doesn't work and is on year 3 of her approval process of getting disability for her hepatitis c, liver cirrhosis, GallBladder operation, COPD, and an extreme Menopause situation that I won't go into. I currently don't have a job and Unemployment has run out. My new job starts in two weeks, haven't told the Landlord yet. If I take the job and make more than $1000 a month my disability claim will get denied. Because of my bipolar, I'm liable to be fired within a month to 12 months after being employed. oh and we qualify for $50 a month for food stamps. Family of 5, got two kids too.