• 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!

Food stamps: should illegal immigrants get free food?

Food stamps: should illegal immigrants get free food?

  • Need more info

    Votes: 7 12.5%

  • No food stamps for illegal immigrants

    Votes: 39 69.6%

  • Yes, give food stamps to illegal immigrants

    Votes: 10 17.9%
  • Total voters
    56
  • Poll closed .
Integrityrespec said:
If they illegally crossed the border to get into the country and then applied for asylum to circumvent the immigration laws we should find a way to deport them. They have already passed up opportunities to seek asylum in Mexico If they are coming from the southern triangle. Our immigration laws are in bad shape and we need to fix them. We cannot take care of everyone.
Click to expand...

IF (biggest word in such debates) IF it is proven they entered this country illegally, lived here for a bit and when caught ask for asylum I understand your position. If they walk up to a border agent, which most do, and seek asylum then no we should find a way to check out their story. Passing up Mexico (with it's YUGE drug gang problem) isn't a viable excuse to deny entry into the USofA. I agree we need to get real with our immigration laws- far too often 'nativists' are in charge.

We aren't taking care of everyone, just the very rich and drug related... :peace
 
jamesrage said:
Illegal aliens can get foodstamps if they have children born in the US.Illegal aliens can also get WIC. Illegal aliens can get foodstamps if the food stamp office isn't checking.

Legal immigrants shouldn't be on welfare,foodstamps and other aid. Those we let in should be self sufficient, not a burden to Americans.
Click to expand...

Say a person has been living here for decades with a green card. They paid taxes or were married to Americans, had American kids....would your heartlessness extend to them as well? I know the answer because it happened to my mother who never naturalized. Lived here for forty years. Married to an American, had American kids, paid taxes, got treated like dirt by Newt and that asswipe Clinton in 96. And they call themselves Christians.
 
Vadinho said:
Say a person has been living here for decades with a green card. They paid taxes or were married to Americans, had American kids....would your heartlessness extend to them as well? I know the answer because it happened to my mother who never naturalized. Lived here for forty years. Married to an American, had American kids, paid taxes, got treated like dirt by Newt and that asswipe Clinton in 96. And they call themselves Christians.
Click to expand...

Newt Gingrich abandoned and divorced his cancer-ridden wife for his mistress who he married. Bill Clinton cheated on his wife and took sexual advantage of his subordinates. People who are wicked in their private lives to the people they supposedly love the most cannot really then be expected to be to decent to strangers.
 
Felis Leo said:
Newt Gingrich abandoned and divorced his cancer-ridden wife for his mistress who he married. Bill Clinton cheated on his wife and took sexual advantage of his subordinates. People who are wicked in their private lives to the people they supposedly love the most cannot really then be expected to be to decent to strangers.
Click to expand...

Of the two, only one is a sociopath and that is Newt. Bill is just an opportunist. His move to the right was the beginning of the end of the old Dem party. He is the reason we forgot who we really are, Obama got us back to the right path, our next POTUS better not be a Clinton rehash. This is Bidens biggest hurdle, the middle is no mans land.
 
Vadinho said:
Of the two, only one is a sociopath and that is Newt. Bill is just an opportunist. His move to the right was the beginning of the end of the old Dem party. He is the reason we forgot who we really are, Obama got us back to the right path, our next POTUS better not be a Clinton rehash. This is Bidens biggest hurdle, the middle is no mans land.
Click to expand...

Well, I am not a psychiatrist, Vadinho. I am not going to call one man sociopathic and the other simply maladjusted based on my political preferences. My thought is that both men are equally wicked in my eyes. One for abandoning his wife who he swore to never forsake, the other for cheating on his wife and then siccing his cronies on his former paramours after they spilled the beans. In my studied opinion, one cannot reasonably expect those men who are wicked in their personal lives to uphold the public trust in their public lives.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
Well, I am not a psychiatrist, Vadinho. I am not going to call one man sociopathic and the other simply maladjusted based on my political preferences. My thought is that both men are equally wicked in my eyes. One for abandoning his wife who he swore to never forsake, the other for cheating on his wife and then siccing his cronies on his former paramours after they spilled the beans. In my studied opinion, one cannot reasonably expect those men who are wicked in their personal lives to uphold the public trust in their public lives.
Click to expand...

Sorry but comparing the morality of Newt with infidelities by Clinton ignores the scope of Newt's impact upon the GOP and our politics. Newt is by far the more detesting creature.
 
Vadinho said:
Sorry but comparing the morality of Newt with infidelities by Clinton ignores the scope of Newt's impact upon the GOP and our politics. Newt is by far the more detesting creature.
Click to expand...

Well, naturally, Vadinho. But I am a conservative. So I see the world through the lens of a very different set of values than I am sure you do. I am sure you believe that the disintegration of political discourse and the increase in partisanship can be wholly laid at the feet of Republicans like Newt Gingrich, as well as the policies he pushed, while the Democrats are the benighted innocents. I meanwhile see these problems arising from the disintegration of the standards of public morality by men in power like Bill Clinton, who were defended by Democrats wholeheartedly when in a prior generation, both Democrats and Republicans would have defenestrated the man. And thus, in this prisoners' dilemma, men with less and less character are elected as a result.

Though to be fair, for his myriad faults, Barack Obama was and is by all accounts an exemplary family man.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
Well, naturally, Vadinho. But I am a conservative. So I see the world through the lens of a very different set of values than I am sure you do. I am sure you believe that the disintegration of political discourse and the increase in partisanship can be wholly laid at the feet of Republicans like Newt Gingrich, as well as the policies he pushed, while the Democrats are the benighted innocents. I meanwhile see these problems arising from the disintegration of the standards of public morality by men in power like Bill Clinton, who were defended by Democrats wholeheartedly when in a prior generation, both Democrats and Republicans would have defenestrated the man. And thus, in this prisoners' dilemma, men with less and less character are elected as a result.

Though to be fair, for his myriad faults, Barack Obama was and is by all accounts an exemplary family man.
Click to expand...

Not surprising you want to ignore the long history of right wing blasting of all things liberal going far back in time to its founding as a movement. Not surprising that infidelities by Clinton seem more responsible for the political environment then someone like Newt. If you want to know more about your ideology, try reading some history of it by a professor of conservatism.

Trump and Republicans: a historian on how the right created Trumpism - Vox

As a older person, I have been watching it evolve for decades. I like to say that I never considered myself a liberal until a conservative called me on. Then I embraced it with gusto.
 
Vadinho said:
Not surprising you want to ignore the long history of right wing blasting of all things liberal going far back in time to its founding as a movement. Not surprising that infidelities by Clinton seem more responsible for the political environment then someone like Newt. If you want to know more about your ideology, try reading some history of it by a professor of conservatism.
Click to expand...

I do not ignore it, Vadinho. I just take different factors into consideration. You seem to think Republicans are wholly responsible for the present state of dissolution, and the Democrats are blameless. I think both Republicans and Democrats are responsible, and I believe the evidence bears out my position more than it bears yours out.

Vadinho said:
Trump and Republicans: a historian on how the right created Trumpism - Vox
Click to expand...

You must forgive me, but Seth Cotlar admits that he has no conservative bona fides. Having conservative parents and living in a right-leaning household does not make one a conservative (and why does he even bring it up?). He admits that he never was conservative, never had conservative leanings and nor gives any respect conservative arguments or policies. He seems to study and comment on conservatism in the same way that a bacteriologist studies disease; not out of any respect for the subject, but the with the aim to eradicate it.

He is not an independent observer without biases. He is an activist with an agenda. And by the way, there is nothing wrong with that. He clearly appraises conservatism in the same manner that I appraise progressivism; as something to be combated tooth and nail because it shall give no inch or quarter until society is wholly remade into something approaching a terrible utopia. But his contempt certainly paints his response.

Vadinho said:
As a older person, I have been watching it evolve for decades. I like to say that I never considered myself a liberal until a conservative called me on. Then I embraced it with gusto.
Click to expand...

Well, I may be wet-behind-the-ears in comparison to you, Vadinho. But that also gives me the fresher perspective in appraising the sides that are clashing, whatever my pre-existing biases. That in turn leads me to conclude that there are indeed wicked conservatives who have helped bring harm to society, but they are equaled by wicked liberals who bring worse harm, both for their lack of character and their policies, and acting as the defensive linemen for illiberal progressives and their policies. Which is why I remain a conservative. I imagine you embraced liberalism for near-identical reasons.
 
Last edited:
Yes, of course they should get free food. They can report to the nearest ICE office and receive a free meal before being put on a bus/train/plane and sent back home.
 
Felis Leo said:
I do not ignore it, Vadinho. I just take different factors into consideration. You seem to think Republicans are wholly responsible for the present state of dissolution, and the Democrats are blameless. I think both Republicans and Democrats are responsible, and I believe the evidence bears out my position more than it bears yours out.



You must forgive me, but Seth Cotlar admits that he has no conservative bona fides. Having conservative parents and living in a right-leaning household does not make one a conservative (and why does he even bring it up?). He admits that he never was conservative, never had conservative leanings and nor gives any respect conservative arguments or policies. He seems to study and comment on conservatism in the same way that a bacteriologist studies disease; not out of any respect for the subject, but the with the aim to eradicate it.

He is not an independent observer without biases. He is an activist with an agenda. And by the way, there is nothing wrong with that. He clearly appraises conservatism in the same manner that I appraise progressivism; as something to be combated tooth and nail because it shall give no inch or quarter until society is wholly remade into something approaching a terrible utopia. But his contempt certainly paints his response.



Well, I may be wet-behind-the-ears in comparison to you, Vadinho. But that also gives me the fresher perspective in appraising the sides that are clashing, whatever my pre-existing biases. That in turn leads me to conclude that there are indeed wicked conservatives who have helped bring harm to society, but they are equaled by wicked liberals who bring worse harm, both for their lack of character and their policies, and acting as the defensive linemen for illiberal progressives and their policies. Which is why I remain a conservative. I imagine you embraced liberalism for near-identical reasons.
Click to expand...

so you think the only trusted historian is a conservative historian. This tells me all I need to know about your ability to reason outside of your tribe. I suggest you read more, try something besides a book by O'reilly or Dinesh. You know, history.
 
Felis Leo said:
Well, naturally, Vadinho. But I am a conservative. So I see the world through the lens of a very different set of values than I am sure you do. I am sure you believe that the disintegration of political discourse and the increase in partisanship can be wholly laid at the feet of Republicans like Newt Gingrich, as well as the policies he pushed, while the Democrats are the benighted innocents. I meanwhile see these problems arising from the disintegration of the standards of public morality by men in power like Bill Clinton, who were defended by Democrats wholeheartedly when in a prior generation, both Democrats and Republicans would have defenestrated the man. And thus, in this prisoners' dilemma, men with less and less character are elected as a result.

Though to be fair, for his myriad faults, Barack Obama was and is by all accounts an exemplary family man.
Click to expand...

Im not condoning immorality in your marriage, however to try to say one person is ok for his and the other isn't for theirs is just goofy. Unfortunately we are living in a country where about 50% of folks have been divorced and somewhere around 40% have had affairs. If you want to condemn a politician for it, then you better look hard at a bunch of your friends because I'd bet a lot of them are in those stats.
 
Vadinho said:
so you think the only trusted historian is a conservative historian. This tells me all I need to know about your ability to reason outside of your tribe. I suggest you read more, try something besides a book by O'reilly or Dinesh. You know, history.
Click to expand...

I have never read any books by Bill O'Reilly or Dinesh D'Souza, Vadinho. Nor do I wish to. I have just as much interest in reading the works of partisan anti-liberal ideologues as I have in reading the works of partisan anti-conservative ideologues.
 
stevecanuck said:
Yes, of course they should get free food. They can report to the nearest ICE office and receive a free meal before being put on a bus/train/plane and sent back home.
Click to expand...

Or enjoy their meal in a cage!
 
weaver2 said:
My post didn't concern illegal immigrants because Trump's EO effects American citizens and legal immigrants. The current law will not give aid to people with big assets like a home or expensive vehicle. However, the current law allows states flexibility in interpreting eligibility for aid. Some states have used that flexibility to allowed people to keep homes and cars and still get aid. Trump's EO will stop that flexibility. Citizens and legal immigrants will be required to give up assets in order to get aid.
Click to expand...

Well, it's either focus aid on the truly destitute, or have less to provide to all. If your goal is to maximize aid to the well-off, understand that means it comes at a cost to the worse-off.

A poster agreed with Trump that people with assets should have to give them up in order to receive aid. The poster felt that giving people aid keeps them from wanting to work their way out of poverty. The scenario I described, which is unfortunately too true, was to show that most families needing help were working families, not welfare cheats, and taking away their housing and means of getting to work would only make it harder to work their way out of poverty.
Click to expand...

What you described was a scenario where working one's way out of poverty wasn't presented as an option, because A) the community had no jobs and B) your family (apparently) wasn't willing to move to an area that did. In this scenario, I suppose, the best they can hope for is to self-teach on how to live off the land, or, yes, decide to make welfare a way of life for themselves and their children.

The poster in question is simply expressing a long-held conviction in this country that goes back to Benjamin Franklin, who first articulated that, in his experience, one of the best ways to help those in poverty was not to make them too comfortable in it (he was a big believer in work, was ole Ben Franklin).

This same scenario is being repeated in the coal mining areas of Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia and Pennsylvania; in the steel manufacturing areas surrounding the coal mining areas; in paper making areas of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, and in the wood products manufacturing areas in most of the southern states. All of theses people worked hard and paid taxes. Taxes support aid. Why deny them aid they've paid for?
Click to expand...

Saying that someone has paid taxes does not translate to "therefore we should give them money designed to help the destitute." One has to fill the latter qualification as well.

How about a 3rd and a 4th option.
3. Remain where they are get temporary help until they get trained for or find another job.
4. Pay moving costs to places where there is work instead of paying aid.
Click to expand...

3. You have already stated in your magical hypothetical that there are no jobs in the area.
4. That is not a little of what aid money is designed to do - help people take the steps necessary to adjust to where they can self-employ.
 
Felis Leo said:
Newt Gingrich abandoned and divorced his cancer-ridden wife for his mistress who he married. Bill Clinton cheated on his wife and took sexual advantage of his subordinates. People who are wicked in their private lives to the people they supposedly love the most cannot really then be expected to be to decent to strangers.
Click to expand...

and a man who has cheated on all three of his wives and has a history of stiffing people with whom he's done business can't be expected to be decent to anyone.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and a man who has cheated on all three of his wives and has a history of stiffing people with whom he's done business can't be expected to be decent to anyone.
Click to expand...

Certainly not. Dishonesty and untrustworthiness in the most intimate affairs of a person's life is certainly a good predictor of whether or not they will be dishonest and untrustworthy in other areas of their lives.

Hence why I think people who have been found to be unfaithful to their spouses should not be allowed national security clearance, for example. If you cannot be trusted to uphold your marriage vows, you certainly should not be trusted with our nation's most sensitive secrets.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
Certainly not. Dishonesty and untrustworthiness in the most intimate affairs of a person's life is certainly a good predictor of whether or not they will be dishonest and untrustworthy in other areas of their lives.

Hence why I think people who have been found to be unfaithful to their spouses should not be allowed national security clearance, for example. If you cannot be trusted to uphold your marriage vows, you certainly should not be trusted with our nation's most sensitive secrets.
Click to expand...

I could support that.
And, they should not be elected to high office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom