• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump considers deporting immigrants on welfare

V

volsrock

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
3,995
Reaction score
1,261
Location
Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The Trump administration is considering a plan to weed out would-be immigrants who are likely to require public assistance, as well as to deport — when possible — immigrants already living in the United States who depend on taxpayer help, according to a draft executive order obtained by The Washington Post.

The administration would be seeking to "deny admission to any alien who is likely to become a public charge" and to develop standards for "determining whether an alien is deportable ... for having become a public charge within five years of entry" — receiving a certain amount of public assistance, including food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid.



Blog: Trump considers deporting immigrants on welfare

More winning
 
volsrock said:
The Trump administration is considering a plan to weed out would-be immigrants who are likely to require public assistance, as well as to deport — when possible — immigrants already living in the United States who depend on taxpayer help, according to a draft executive order obtained by The Washington Post.

The administration would be seeking to "deny admission to any alien who is likely to become a public charge" and to develop standards for "determining whether an alien is deportable ... for having become a public charge within five years of entry" — receiving a certain amount of public assistance, including food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid.



Blog: Trump considers deporting immigrants on welfare

More winning
Click to expand...

This is going to outrage liberals! If we had deported immigrants on welfare then the Tarnaev brothers would never have been able to attack us! But attacking us is what liberals want. Ensuring that immigrants are able to financially support themselves would make our policies dangerously similar to....CANADA's immigration policy!!!

Yep. Canadians require their immigrants to be financially sound precisely so that they DON'T suck up welfare dollars.
 
volsrock said:


The Trump administration is considering a plan to weed out would-be immigrants who are likely to require public assistance, as well as to deport — when possible — immigrants already living in the United States who depend on taxpayer help, according to a draft executive order obtained by The Washington Post.

The administration would be seeking to "deny admission to any alien who is likely to become a public charge" and to develop standards for "determining whether an alien is deportable ... for having become a public charge within five years of entry" — receiving a certain amount of public assistance, including food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid.



Blog: Trump considers deporting immigrants on welfare

More winning
Click to expand...

the trumpster has been reading my mind

lets do it
 
reinoe said:
This is going to outrage liberals! If we had deported immigrants on welfare then the Tarnaev brothers would never have been able to attack us! But attacking us is what liberals want. Ensuring that immigrants are able to financially support themselves would make our policies dangerously similar to....CANADA's immigration policy!!!

Yep. Canadians require their immigrants to be financially sound precisely so that they DON'T suck up welfare dollars.
Click to expand...

Since your lean is "very liberal" are you just speaking in the third person about your own beliefs?
 
Absolutely not. Legal immigrants to the US? Deported because they are in a slump? Really?
 
Wow he actually proposes something relatively logical.. of course he will probably screw this one up also. However.. one has to ask, how many immigrants actually get any benefits without having paid into said system beforehand. Of course the Trumpbots dont expect immigrants to pay taxes and not get something back if and when it is so needed.
 
KevinKohler said:
Absolutely not. Legal immigrants to the US? Deported because they are in a slump? Really?
Click to expand...

yes, really

If they can't pull their own weight they need to go back where they came from
 
If I could have back even half of taxes I've paid into SS, which will be bankrupt long before I hit retirement age of 75 ( by the time I get there), ..


then I'd be able to care for myself during a "Slump" until I got things rolling again.


The Government has proven to be a poor investment, to an outright ponzi scheme fraud scam, when ever I compare it to private savings and investment.


But the Progressives have swindled the system for Trillions. Just look at the net-worth of the Clintons.


-
 
volsrock said:
The Trump administration is considering a plan to weed out would-be immigrants who are likely to require public assistance, as well as to deport — when possible — immigrants already living in the United States who depend on taxpayer help, according to a draft executive order obtained by The Washington Post.

The administration would be seeking to "deny admission to any alien who is likely to become a public charge" and to develop standards for "determining whether an alien is deportable ... for having become a public charge within five years of entry" — receiving a certain amount of public assistance, including food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid.



Blog: Trump considers deporting immigrants on welfare

More winning
Click to expand...


This is long overdue. It's actually written into our immigration law that a legal immigrant cannot use ANY form of welfare for at least 5 years, in fact you have to have a sponsor from the US sponsor you as part of the legal immigration process. How do I know, because I am a legal immigrant. :)

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
This is long overdue. It's actually written into our immigration law that a legal immigrant cannot use ANY form of welfare for at least 5 years, in fact you have to have a sponsor from the US sponsor you as part of the legal immigration process. How do I know, because I am a legal immigrant. :)

Tim-
Click to expand...

Boy, that sure goes against the Democrat mantra of getting votes the only way they can....(other than blatant propaganda and lies)

And congrats on doing it legally. So rare these days as the world feels it now has the "right" to come here regardless
 
Last edited:
So...a member of Trump's staff sends him a "draft order" for him to consider. Is Trump, in fact, considering this thing? Has he, perhaps, tossed this thing in the trash? Is there any actual news about what Trump is doing about this?

If the answer to these questions are unknown, then the thread title is inaccurate.

The WaPo article that is referenced as the source for the AmericanThinker article doesn't seem to have any answers.

The drafts are circulating among administration officials, and it is unclear whether President Trump has decided to move forward with them or when he might sign them if he does decide to put them in place. The White House would not confirm or deny the authenticity of the orders, and White House officials did not respond to requests for comment about the drafts Monday and Tuesday.
Click to expand...

At this point, any discussion of this is mere speculation.

I agree with reinoe that this is sure to outrage liberals. But, as the AmericanThinker article informs, it will all come down to existing laws...and the appearance that WaPo is just trying to stir up trouble over nothing. From my own reading of the draft, I see nothing remarkable about it. It simply tells agencies to enforce existing laws and compile and present a few reports.

Note on the side...

The WaPo article give a link to what is actually TWO draft EO's...the one concerning immigrants on welfare and one concerning enforcement of laws barring illegal immigrants from working in the US. I find that second one to be more important and interesting. Perhaps someone would like to start a thread on that one? (I've pretty much given up starting threads for various reasons, so it won't be me.)
 
volsrock said:
The Trump administration is considering a plan to weed out would-be immigrants who are likely to require public assistance, as well as to deport — when possible — immigrants already living in the United States who depend on taxpayer help, according to a draft executive order obtained by The Washington Post.

The administration would be seeking to "deny admission to any alien who is likely to become a public charge" and to develop standards for "determining whether an alien is deportable ... for having become a public charge within five years of entry" — receiving a certain amount of public assistance, including food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid.

Blog: Trump considers deporting immigrants on welfare

More winning
Click to expand...

No, not "more winning"... it is more waste. Political opportunism at best.

A plan to "weed out would-be immigrants" likely to need public assistance ignores all the requirements and regulation on obtaining public assistance in the first place. Contrary to political cartoons and right-wing commentary on the subject, there is very little mechanism to go from a refugee and/or legal immigrant status instantly into public assistance.

As for those here, legally, and on some form of public assistance (and those numbers cannot be that great) it would be instantly subject to legal challenge to all of a sudden try to deport them on that reason alone.

It sounds a good bit like the asinine idea to drug test everyone on public assistance, only to find out the cost of testing was far greater than the fraction of a percent kicked off public assistance for testing positive.

This is the **** that gives us a bad name.
 
volsrock said:
The Trump administration is considering a plan to weed out would-be immigrants who are likely to require public assistance, as well as to deport — when possible — immigrants already living in the United States who depend on taxpayer help, according to a draft executive order obtained by The Washington Post.
The administration would be seeking to "deny admission to any alien who is likely to become a public charge" and to develop standards for "determining whether an alien is deportable ... for having become a public charge within five years of entry" — receiving a certain amount of public assistance, including food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid.
Blog: Trump considers deporting immigrants on welfare
More winning
Click to expand...
Excellent!
It's bad enough letting in low skilled, wage-depressing, non-English speakers.. without having to put them and their instant-citizen-children on all sorts of federal aid.
E-verify. No verifiable National ID, NO Job. (or aid)
They Walk Home.

Wake up Trumpov, we don't need a "Wall", just an IQ.
This is a step in the right direction.
We need to stop Budget stressing Haitians and Cubans as well, from their respective privileged treatments.
 
If Progs and libs get there way.....

One day, noone will want to come to the hell hole they've created.....everyone remaining will be trying to go elsewhere (where they long ago decided against cultural suicide)

But alas, there will be nowhere to go because noone else is going to be stupid enough to think that open borders is a good idea.
 
Mac77 said:
yes, really

If they can't pull their own weight they need to go back where they came from
Click to expand...

What's the difference between a US citizen who immigrated here who is on public assistance, and a US citizen who was born here who is on public assistance?
 
As pointed-out by Hicup above, I believe this 'not using public assistance' is a standard part of the immigration process. I've had family members recently go through the immigration process, and if they cannot prove financial sustainability, then someone must sign for them and take financial responsibility for them.

Virtually all our peer countries have similar legislation, and require one to show financial self-support far in excess of that the U.S. requires.

So I'm all for this.

Actually, I think the problem we have here in this country is not one of needing more laws, but of enforcing the current (adequate) laws. Why is E-verify not mandated?
 
OrphanSlug said:
No, not "more winning"... it is more waste. Political opportunism at best.
A plan to "weed out would-be immigrants" likely to need public assistance ignores all the requirements and regulation on obtaining public assistance in the first place. Contrary to political cartoons and right-wing commentary on the subject, there is very little mechanism to go from a refugee and/or legal immigrant status instantly into public assistance.
As for those here, legally, and on some form of public assistance (and those numbers cannot be that great) it would be instantly subject to legal challenge to all of a sudden try to deport them on that reason alone.
It sounds a good bit like the asinine idea to drug test everyone on public assistance, only to find out the cost of testing was far greater than the fraction of a percent kicked off public assistance for testing positive.
This is the **** that gives us a bad name.
Click to expand...

You see, had the RIGHT and LEGAL thing been done long ago, this would not be necessary. Unfortunately folks like you insist on doing things the wrong way, the destructive (but easy) way...and here we are
 
Hicup said:
This is long overdue. It's actually written into our immigration law that a legal immigrant cannot use ANY form of welfare for at least 5 years, in fact you have to have a sponsor from the US sponsor you as part of the legal immigration process. How do I know, because I am a legal immigrant. :)

Tim-
Click to expand...

Except, if you come here as a designated person granted Asylum, not only does the 5 years without welfare not apply, there are special government kitties of money to be dolled out to you at the cost of $257K "Getting Started" money, plus an additional $65K per person per year.

And you get fast tracked to being granted citizenship, and become a voter.

Do you see WHY Obama pushed the Muslim Asylum so much?

-
 
I think this may be the key to takeaway from this blog:

From Washington Post Article:

Long-standing U.S. law already makes it difficult for noncitizens to receive most forms of public assistance, which limits how many immigrants receive such taxpayer-funded help. In 1996, President Bill Clinton ... severely restricted all immigrant access to social assistance; those who are in the country illegally are barred from almost any federal program designed for the poor.*

... nder existing federal law, new permanent residents, or green-card holders, are unable to qualify for welfare and other public benefits during their first five years of residency. Immigrants who entered the United States illegally also are unable to obtain federal welfare benefits.
Click to expand...


From the blog:

Okay, I stopped understanding here. *First the WaPo says that Trump is planning to deport immigrants on welfare. *Then the WaPo says immigrants, by law, are not on welfare. *If that's the case, why is the WaPo concerned? *Whom does Angela Kelly think Trump is firing his anti-immigrant Uzi at?
Click to expand...

From all of this, I can't see that there is any change other than greater enforcement maybe. I don't see a change to citizens, or permanent residents that have been here longer than 5 years. What did I miss?

If he is proposing to extend that 5 years then it seems this might be something to debate. Otherwise, this seems like a non-starter unless I'm missing something.
 
KevinKohler said:
What's the difference between a US citizen who immigrated here who is on public assistance, and a US citizen who was born here who is on public assistance?
Click to expand...

Intent and suitability.
Far too many immigrants coming here now have no intent to assimilate and are coming for the Democrat free gravy train being advertised by the Left worldwide (in exchange for votes)
 
NoLeftNoRight said:
You see, had the RIGHT and LEGAL thing been done long ago, this would not be necessary. Unfortunately folks like you insist on doing things the wrong way, the destructive (but easy) way...and here we are
Click to expand...

Now you get to tell us all how I have been "insisting on doing things the wrong way."
 
KevinKohler said:
Bull****.

So now our immigration policy is, "America, the land of oportunity, unless we hit a recession...and then we deport all of you."
Click to expand...

Our immigration policy has always been, "America, the land of opportunity...but not the land of free handouts."
 
dorsai said:
I think this may be the key to takeaway from this blog:

From Washington Post Article:



From the blog:



From all of this, I can't see that there is any change other than greater enforcement maybe. I don't see a change to citizens, or permanent residents that have been here longer than 5 years. What did I miss?

If he is proposing to extend that 5 years then it seems this might be something to debate. Otherwise, this seems like a non-starter unless I'm missing something.
Click to expand...

As I said in my first post in this thread, what it comes down to is WaPo trying to stir up ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom