• 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 .
weaver2 said:
The Trump EO cuts food stamps and other aid to the working poor that are born here American citizens and legal immigrants that have a right be in and work in the US and they pay taxes. They are not getting free food, they have paid their taxes they should be helped when they need it.
Click to expand...

Number one, get into the 21st century - "food stamps" no longer exist, which tells me your claims are bogus.

"The Trump administration wants to change the way states determine who qualifies for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits, also known as food stamps. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 3 million people would lose their food assistance as a result.

The administration says it wants to close what it calls a "loophole" that allows states to give benefits to those who would not otherwise be eligible by raising or eliminating income and asset limits. Forty states and Washington, D.C., now take advantage of this option and have done so for many years.

"This proposal will not only save money, but more importantly it preserves the integrity of the program while ensuring nutrition assistance programs serve those most in need," Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in announcing the proposed rule, published in the Federal Register. His agency estimates the change would likely save $2.5 billion a year."

SNAP Benefits: Trump Administration Wants To Change Who Qualifies : NPR

So, you think we should still give food stamps to people who could buy their own food if not for their exorbitant house payments and car payments? That's who this measure is aimed at. Personally, I think we need to target these benefits at people who need it through no fault of their own. Everybody else can work for it.
 
First of all, the notion that SNAP can only be used for food is BS. It can be used to withdraw cash from ATMs. ATMs around strip clubs and pot selling establishments have a large number of SNAP withdraws for some reason. They can also be used at Taco Bell, KFC, Starbucks, Lingerie Shops, Payless Shoes, and has even been used for bail. In truth, the entire SNAP program needs to be overhauled to stop abuse.

Second, there is less than 4% unemployment. There are plenty of jobs for everyone. The biggest deterrent keeping someone from obtaining a better job is lack of education or job skills. There is easy access to grants and programs that will allow people to obtain the education or skills necessary to make a better living. The reason people don't take advantage of these is lack of incentive. Many people would rather sit on their duff and live off the dole than get out an earn a living. If you take all the free stuff away the incentive will be there.

Third, there are food pantries everywhere. Anyone needing food can go there and without question obtain food. I recently spent a day working at one of these pantries. I spent the day helping people select what they wanted, boxing it up and carrying it out to their cars. Nearly all the people we helped we Hispanic. After spending the day helping at this establishment, a friend and I went to a nearby restraint to eat. Much to our surprise, some of the people we had helped were sitting at the bar getting hammered. How strange, they had no money for food but had money for bar drinks.
 
So this is what I came up with. Please correct me if incorrect

Final Rule on Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility

Self-sufficiency has long been a basic principle of U.S. immigration law. Since the 1800s, Congress has put into statute that individuals are inadmissible to the United States if they are unable to care for themselves without becoming public charges. Since 1996, federal laws have stated that foreign nationals generally must be self-sufficient. This final rule provides guidance on how to determine if someone applying for admission or adjustment of status is likely at any time to become a public charge.
Click to expand...


Final Rule on Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility | USCIS

The new rule provides quite a few hardship, even i.e. DACA exemptions, but seems to more a tightening of previously existing rules.
Having said that, I don't think anyone would let someone starve to death should they need a temporary hand out.
At least that's my interpretation
 
Dittohead not! said:
There is no such thing as "free food." There is no 'free" anything.

Someone has to pay for it one way or another.

And the only people getting food and rent paid for by the taxpayers should be the disabled who can not work. Anyone who has a job should be able to afford food, shelter, transportation, clothing, and medical care.

All the so called "welfare" programs do is subsidize employers who don't pay their employees a living wage.
Click to expand...

The bolded statement is the ideal but the reality is that people often find jobs yet are still struggling to afford their basic necessities
 
it's just me said:
Number one, get into the 21st century - "food stamps" no longer exist, which tells me your claims are bogus.


"This proposal will not only save money, but more importantly it preserves the integrity of the program while ensuring nutrition assistance programs serve those most in need," Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in announcing the proposed rule, published in the Federal Register. His agency estimates the change would likely save $2.5 billion a year."
Click to expand...

I posted the official summary of the EO from the Federal Register at post # 21. I'm aware that Trump is talking about SNAP Just in case you missed it here it is again.

SUMMARY:
Section 5(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, provides that households in which each member receives benefits under a State program funded under part A of Title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA) (also known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants [1] ) shall be categorically eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Currently, SNAP regulations broadly interpret “benefits” to mean cash assistance and non-cash or in-kind benefits or services from any TANF-funded program.[2] In operation, this has allowed categorical eligibility for SNAP to be conferred on households based on receipt of minimal benefits issued by TANF-funded programs which may not conduct a robust eligibility determination and do not meaningfully move families toward self-sufficiency. The Food and Nutrition Act has clear parameters regarding the income and resource limits that SNAP households must meet, and categorical eligibility is intended to apply only when the conferring program has properly determined eligibility. Extending categorical eligibility to participants who have not been screened for eligibility compromises program integrity and reduces public confidence that benefits are being provided to eligible households.

Therefore, the Department proposes updating the regulations to refine categorical eligibility requirements based on receipt of TANF benefits. Specifically, the Department proposes: (1) To define “benefits” for categorical eligibility to mean ongoing and substantial benefits; and (2) to limit the types of non-cash TANF benefits conferring categorical eligibility to those that focus on subsidized employment, work supports and childcare. The proposed rule would also require State agencies to inform FNS of all non-cash TANF benefits that confer categorical eligibility.

The proposed revisions would create a clearer and more consistent nationwide policy that ensures categorical eligibility is extended only to households that have sufficiently demonstrated eligibility by qualifying for ongoing and substantial benefits from TANF-funded programs designed to assist households and move them towards self-sufficiency.

In addition, the revisions would help ensure that receipt of nominal, one-time benefits or services do not confer categorical eligibility and would address program integrity issues that have surfaced since the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 changed the programs whose benefits confer categorical eligibility. The Department believes these revisions will maintain categorical eligibility's dual purpose of streamlining program administration while ensuring that SNAP benefits are targeted to the appropriate households.
Click to expand...

Under the existing law states are allowed flexibility in determining who gets aid. This has resulted in some states doing the following:
1. instituting a program of automatic sign up for all benefit if the receive a non-monetary federal or state benefit. Automatic sign up was to avoid the complicated application process and the extended wait time between application and delivery of aid.
2. raising cut off level of asset ownership in applying for aid so that the working poor don't have to sell homes or cars in order to get temporary assistance.
3. raising the cut off level of family income in applying for school lunches so more kids are eligible for reduced cost for school lunch .

The cost of using the flexibility of the program to increase support is paid for by the state making the changes. This state support for the working poor for some reason infuriates conservatives and Trump's EO is meant to make sure one more obstacle is put in their way of trying to work out of poverty.

It must make the working poor very proud that they are helping Trump save your tax money.
 
weaver2 said:
I posted the official summary of the EO from the Federal Register at post # 21. I'm aware that Trump is talking about SNAP Just in case you missed it here it is again.



Under the existing law states are allowed flexibility in determining who gets aid. This has resulted in some states doing the following:
1. instituting a program of automatic sign up for all benefit if the receive a non-monetary federal or state benefit. Automatic sign up was to avoid the complicated application process and the extended wait time between application and delivery of aid.
2. raising cut off level of asset ownership in applying for aid so that the working poor don't have to sell homes or cars in order to get temporary assistance.
3. raising the cut off level of family income in applying for school lunches so more kids are eligible for reduced cost for school lunch .

The cost of using the flexibility of the program to increase support is paid for by the state making the changes. This state support for the working poor for some reason infuriates conservatives and Trump's EO is meant to make sure one more obstacle is put in their way of trying to work out of poverty.

It must make the working poor very proud that they are helping Trump save your tax money.
Click to expand...

You miss the whole point. Giving people free stuff does not help them work their way our of poverty. It only makes living in poverty more bearable. In fact, it creates and incentive to stay in poverty. It has created a status quo of millions of dependent people.
 
BahamaBob;1070484804]First of all, the notion that SNAP can only be used for food is BS. It can be used to withdraw cash from ATMs. ATMs around strip clubs and pot selling establishments have a large number of SNAP withdraws for some reason. They can also be used at Taco Bell, KFC, Starbucks, Lingerie Shops, Payless Shoes, and has even been used for bail. In truth, the entire SNAP program needs to be overhauled to stop abuse.
Click to expand...

"While critics still like to use old arguments of rampant abuse to lambast a program that feeds millions of Americans, the fraud rate has decreased from “about 4 cents on the dollar in 1993 to about 1 cent” by 2006.
And this decline has only continued, with the 3.5% rate of fraud in 2012 reducing to less than 1.5% today." (from Time Magazine 2017)





Second, there is less than 4% unemployment. There are plenty of jobs for everyone. The biggest deterrent keeping someone from obtaining a better job is lack of education or job skills. There is easy access to grants and programs that will allow people to obtain the education or skills necessary to make a better living. The reason people don't take advantage of these is lack of incentive. Many people would rather sit on their duff and live off the dole than get out an earn a living. If you take all the free stuff away the incentive will be there.
Click to expand...

Most food support goes to working families whose wages are kept artificially low by Republicans who will not vote to raise the minimum wage. The biggest deterrent for obtaining a better job is not lack of education and job skills. It has to do with the demographics of job loss in extractive and manufacturing industries in rural areas. You don't know a thing about these people. I do. I lived in rural Maine for 46 years and I know a thing or two about extractive industries and paper mills. These people are not living on the dole and most are working two and sometimes three jobs to keep their families and homes together after the industries left and took their pensions with them.


Third, there are food pantries everywhere. Anyone needing food can go there and without question obtain food. I recently spent a day working at one of these pantries. I spent the day helping people select what they wanted, boxing it up and carrying it out to their cars. Nearly all the people we helped we Hispanic. After spending the day helping at this establishment, a friend and I went to a nearby restraint to eat. Much to our surprise, some of the people we had helped were sitting at the bar getting hammered. How strange, they had no money for food but had money for bar drinks.
Click to expand...

Food pantries are not everywhere especially not in poor rural areas where the job loss is greatest. I'm guessing that someone who wants to make sure that the working poor are incentivized by denying support for them is probably not spending their days doing charitable work. And of all the ethnic groups alcoholism is lowest among Hispanics.
 
Last edited:
weaver2 said:
"While critics still like to use old arguments of rampant abuse to lambast a program that feeds millions of Americans, the fraud rate has decreased from “about 4 cents on the dollar in 1993 to about 1 cent” by 2006.
And this decline has only continued, with the 3.5% rate of fraud in 2012 reducing to less than 1.5% today." (from Time Magazine 2017)


Food pantries are not everywhere especially not in poor rural areas where the job loss is greatest. I'm guessing that someone who wants to make sure that the working poor are incentivized by denying support for them is probably not spending their days doing charitable work.


And of all the ethnic groups alcoholism is lowest among Hispanics.
Click to expand...


Correction: I was using out dated statistics on alcohol consumption. Hispanics have had a rising rate of consumption since 1995. Asians are the ethnic group with the least amount of alcoholism
 
BahamaBob said:
You miss the whole point. Giving people free stuff does not help them work their way our of poverty. It only makes living in poverty more bearable. In fact, it creates and incentive to stay in poverty. It has created a status quo of millions of dependent people.
Click to expand...

If you believe that helping people in poverty eat and have shelter makes being poor a cakewalk or attractive then there really is nothing to say to you. This type of mindset is so opposite of modern human thought, secular and religious, that it boggles the mind. Every major religion believes in helping the poor, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless. This goes back thousands of years to clans and tribes all across the world.
 
WillyPete said:
It's all in how you're keeping score.

If a person is legitimately hungry and has no means to pay for food, will you deny them a meal?
Click to expand...

if they are illegally in the country, i"d feed them, arrest them, start the procedure to remove them, but i'd keep feeding them until they were gone, Why does the left constantly want to ignore laws about immigration?
 
notquiteright said:
Ummm Did I say that????

The OP phrasing is saying that. Most respondents are only focused on illegal immigrants.

tRump is apparently lumping the various groups together, not me.... :peace
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

not many are willing to trek a thousand miles across Mexico and present themselves at a hostile border in order to try to circumvent our immigration laws.

The US military has spent a great deal of effort trying to eradicate ISIS and AlQaeda from the Middle Eastern nations, and had a degree of success at doing so. How much easier would it be, I wonder, to eradicate the violent gangs and cartels in three small Central American nations?

The first step would be to end the war on drugs that is funding those violent gangs and cartels. After that, eradicating the cockroaches should be a fairly simple matter. After that, there would be no reason for the Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and Nicaraguans to want to come here. A Marshall Plan to help them rebuild after the violence and war should be successful.
 
BahamaBob said:
You miss the whole point. Giving people free stuff does not help them work their way our of poverty. It only makes living in poverty more bearable. In fact, it creates and incentive to stay in poverty. It has created a status quo of millions of dependent people.
Click to expand...

Let's pretend BahamaBob (indicating familiarity with the Bahamas ...not the usual hangout of the working poor) that for a moment you you are a 40 year old paper maker in Millinocket, Maine. You are a highly experienced and skilled technical worker operating a very complex 75 foot long machine that makes paper at the rate of 35 miles of paper an hour . You earn upwards of $80 thousand a year, have 2 kids, a paid off a 4 bedroom home on 1.5 acres and a little primitive 3 bedroom camp on Boyd Lake. Your extended family has lived here for 4 generations.


Great Northern Nekoosha declares bankruptcy, closes the mill which was making a profit (it's complicated but it's legal), given 2 weeks warning, without the legal 2 month's severance pay and left town with your pension, which they can do if they declare bankruptcy.

You find two temporary jobs 85 miles away in Bangor. Together they pay half of what you were earning and your wife finds a local job at minimum wage. Fortunately your truck is a late model, the house is paid off, you've sold the camp , you have some savings and you're trying to sell your home so you can move to where there are jobs.. You are making it for the first year and a half. Then one of the temp jobs folds and the truck needs major repairs. The wife's local job folds because the economy in Millinocket is tanking. You've reduced your $150,000 home to $75,000 but nobody is buying anything in Millinocket.

You've gotten all the support from retired parents that they can afford, maxed out the credit card and there are no prospects for another job any time soon. This exact same story is being repeated in all paper and wood products industries, coal mining, small manufacturing plants and all the satellite businesses that depended on or supplied the basic industries.

Finally you can't hold it together any longer and apply for support, but in order to get it you can't have combined assets greater than $45,000. The truck's worth about $1500 and the house isn't selling at $75,000 and probably won't sell at $45,000.

Nobody in this depressed economy is buying trucks or houses.

Now for the logic part: how does it make any sense to require a family to sell a paid off home and live in a rental unit or sell a vehicle when the nearest jobs are 85 miles away.

Do you really think making a family homeless and unable to get to work is an incentive to work harder?
 
Last edited:
Logician Man said:
They are human beings, many of which are hungry babies or little toddlers. I'd rather feed them than judge them because I could never turn my back on anyone that is hungry, especially a child. That's about as cold hearted and callous of a thought process imaginable. Only the lowest of the low would refuse to feed a child under any circumstances. That type of thinking is cut from the same cloth as a sociopath.
Click to expand...

You faux morality aside.

Being as frank as I possibly can be at this point, seeing as that is not our problem. These people who come here looking to illegally immigrate into the US, put themselves and those same children you feign caring for, in such danger.

From what I've seen, the Right are the ones who've been on a majority. Telling these people to legally immigrate, to not break the law in trying to immigrate to the US, and to do nothing but be a productive citizen of the US.

The Left on the other hand, seems to encourage this same exact activity that puts their lives in danger, and ends up with bodies strewn across the wilderness.

I don't mind that you pretend to care for these people. But could you at least not be so blatant in how little you actually care?
 
Oborosen said:
You faux morality aside.

Being as frank as I possibly can be at this point, seeing as that is not our problem. These people who come here looking to illegally immigrate into the US, put themselves and those same children you feign caring for, in such danger.

From what I've seen, the Right are the ones who've been on a majority. Telling these people to legally immigrate, to not break the law in trying to immigrate to the US, and to do nothing but be a productive citizen of the US.

The Left on the other hand, seems to encourage this same exact activity that puts their lives in danger, and ends up with bodies strewn across the wilderness.

I don't mind that you pretend to care for these people. But could you at least not be so blatant in how little you actually care?
Click to expand...

Your post FAILED at /// You (r) faux morality ///. However, it did expose you as one who tries, and fails to read other's minds. Always a solid path to losing an argument.
 
Oborosen said:
You faux morality aside.

Being as frank as I possibly can be at this point, seeing as that is not our problem. These people who come here looking to illegally immigrate into the US, put themselves and those same children you feign caring for, in such danger.

From what I've seen, the Right are the ones who've been on a majority. Telling these people to legally immigrate, to not break the law in trying to immigrate to the US, and to do nothing but be a productive citizen of the US.

The Left on the other hand, seems to encourage this same exact activity that puts their lives in danger, and ends up with bodies strewn across the wilderness.

I don't mind that you pretend to care for these people. But could you at least not be so blatant in how little you actually care?
Click to expand...

How many times do you have to be told that the topic of discussion, Trump's EO, is not about aid to illegal immigrants.
 
Because the goal is to import socialist minded voters.

Integrityrespec said:
if they are illegally in the country, i"d feed them, arrest them, start the procedure to remove them, but i'd keep feeding them until they were gone, Why does the left constantly want to ignore laws about immigration?
Click to expand...
 
Logician Man said:
Your post FAILED at /// You (r) faux morality ///. However, it did expose you as one who tries, and fails to read other's minds. Always a solid path to losing an argument.
Click to expand...

No, if you really care for these people. You'd suggest that they stay, or try to immigrate legally.

Not say that they should be getting this kind of assistance, even after subjecting themselves, and their children to these kinds of hardships. Do as such seems counterintuitive.
 
It's a travesty that we are keeping out productive people that play by the rules in favor of unproductive people who don't play by the rules. Office buildings in Mexico, Bolivia, Colombia and Brazil are full of people that would love to contribute to the USA economy. Coming to the USA illegally doesn't even cross their mind.

Vadinho said:
If you believe that helping people in poverty eat and have shelter makes being poor a cakewalk or attractive then there really is nothing to say to you. This type of mindset is so opposite of modern human thought, secular and religious, that it boggles the mind. Every major religion believes in helping the poor, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless. This goes back thousands of years to clans and tribes all across the world.
Click to expand...
 
weaver2 said:
How many times do you have to be told that the topic of discussion, Trump's EO, is not about aid to illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

I was responding to Logician man, nothing more.
 
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 they are applying for asylum, the reason doesn't matter, they are not in the country illegally. US law and international law allows people to apply for asylum after they have arrived in the country. If they have applied for asylum they are not here illegally nor legally. They are awaiting judgement on their case. And it is not their fault that our immigration laws are inconsistent and out-dated and our departments understaffed and undertrained for their jobs. Any more than it is your fault that the back room of a store catches fire when you are shopping in the store.

And we can and are required to take care of the people that seek asylum in our country. If we have the money to spend on something so frivolous as a 2000mile wall we have the money to take appropriate care of those in the country.
 
swing_voter said:
Food stamps: should illegal immigrants get free food?

So the Trump administration passed a rule that illegal immigrants, non-citizens, can't get food stamps. This is free food handed out by the government.

Do you agree with this?
Click to expand...

I find the poll to narrow in scope to vote. Even the people who voted yes are being myopic and narrow minded.

There are literally billions of people without a common border and/or the means to sneak into our country who would consider the poor in our nation to be wealthy. Clean water and decent food are a dream for these folks. "Progressives" say they care about the 10-20 million who have been able to sneak in and get government benefits. Why are they not demanding that we pass those same benefits to the less fortunate who have not broken our laws? Same applies to healthcare. Why would we provide health care to people who have broken our laws and ignore the billions with no care,innocent law-abiding folks who may live on $1 a day.
 
SDET said:
It's a travesty that we are keeping out productive people that play by the rules in favor of unproductive people who don't play by the rules. Office buildings in Mexico, Bolivia, Colombia and Brazil are full of people that would love to contribute to the USA economy. Coming to the USA illegally doesn't even cross their mind.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy.

Furthermore, right wingers are doing everything they can to reduce legal immigration too.
 
washunut said:
I find the poll to narrow in scope to vote. Even the people who voted yes are being myopic and narrow minded.

There are literally billions of people without a common border and/or the means to sneak into our country who would consider the poor in our nation to be wealthy. Clean water and decent food are a dream for these folks. "Progressives" say they care about the 10-20 million who have been able to sneak in and get government benefits. Why are they not demanding that we pass those same benefits to the less fortunate who have not broken our laws? Same applies to healthcare. Why would we provide health care to people who have broken our laws and ignore the billions with no care,innocent law-abiding folks who may live on $1 a day.
Click to expand...

If you can’t help everyone, you should help no one? Is that your assertion?

Why can’t I flip the question around to you? You claim to care about, say, homeless American veterans. But there are children starving in Africa right now! You monster!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom