• 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 wants to keep immigrants from getting welfare — which is already law

Visbek said:
Sorry, but that is incorrect.

They are not empowered to change federal law, so they can't grant residency or citizenship (of course).

However, if the governor of a state says "Hey immigrants, come on in, the weather's fine!" that is 100% legal.
Click to expand...

I had to click on the feature to "like" this post in order to say that under our Constitution, as originally written and intended, you are right. The Constitution never addresses immigration, only naturalization. Not everyone who shows up as a guest needs to become a citizen.
 
Attusblack said:
Why would the Constitution need to when it is an inherent right of a sovereign nation?
Click to expand...
w

Interesting philosophical/social/legalquestion. Do you have a source for this? Obviously, under systems in place, countries can and do restrict access? I'd be interested in discovering when nations started to enforce borders. Birds and animals cross orders, as does capital, but when did we start to restrict human travel?
 
Nickyjo said:
w

Interesting philosophical/social/legalquestion. Do you have a source for this? Obviously, under systems in place, countries can and do restrict access? I'd be interested in discovering when nations started to enforce borders. Birds and animals cross orders, as does capital, but when did we start to restrict human travel?
Click to expand...


In United States v. CurtissBWright Export Corp. (Sup.Ct.1936), the Court clearly distinguished between powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution and inherent sovereign powers. Delegated powers over internal affairs were carved from the general mass of legislative powers previously governed by the states. States never possessed international powers, however, and the inherent sovereign powers were transferred from Great Britain to the union of states when the U.S. declared its independence. These powers were thus vested in the national government before the Constitution was written and exist without regard to any constitutional grant. It has been suggested that the apparently limitless scope of federal authority over immigration results from this undefined and indefinable source. The Supreme Court has upheld every exercise of this power and has consistently termed it "plenary and unqualified."
Click to expand...
Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization
 
Attusblack said:
Are you claiming that a State, or a Governor of a State, can tell a foreign country, yes send us your people?
Click to expand...
Sure.

It will have no legal force whatsoever. But they can certainly say it. They could even offer safety nets, financial aid or tax breaks if they wanted to.
 
americanwoman said:
"Limited eligibility"

Maybe Trump is calling to revamp that? The five year number probably didn't just come out of the air, who knows?
Click to expand...

You noticed that to.

And once you pop out a child, the child can get welfare.

And it's NQA on registration day at the school.
 
Winston said:
I'm almost positive that refugees can get Food Stamps and WIC.. I don't think they can get "general welfare checks".. maybe Trump meant he's going after Food Stamps.

But, without wasteing time on who's right and who's wrong.. what kind of person enters public office with the goal of taking food from kids and breaking families up by deportation? Like, who makes it their mission.. and thinks to themselves.. of all the problems in the world, it's those damn immigrant parents, who are abusing a program that is like .005 of GDP.
Click to expand...

Maybe that number is more accurate now with the work requirements for able bodied. I am curious where you got that# Have you seen that or is it just a wild guess?
 
Visbek said:
Sure.

It will have no legal force whatsoever. But they can certainly say it. They could even offer safety nets, financial aid or tax breaks if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
What if a bunch of illegals showed up expecting whatever the governor offers and then they get deported, do you think the illegal would have an opportunity to sue that governor or that State? Could the foreign govt sue the State or the Governor? I'm not sure there is a clear cut answer to it, there certainly could be consequences to the State, the Governor, and the US itself, which is probably why no Governor or State has ever said such a thing.
 
The Resister said:
I'm not asking about federal laws. I'm asking how many Executive Orders has Trump rescinded.

As for states, I personally don't worry about what states outside my own do. If they can afford the undocumented population, that is their business. If the citizenry don't like it, election cycles come around every two years. Furthermore, if you take ALL welfare out of the hands of the federal government, it will be easier for the people to make the decisions as to who they think should qualify.
Click to expand...

I worry if the states act as a pass through for federal money.
 
The Resister said:
What you're saying is not totally correct. Between 1986 and 2001 America offered SEVEN amnesties to allow undocumented people to get citizenship. IIRC, far less than half of those eligible applied and the figure may have been as many as seventy percent never applied.

It's pretty common to find undocumented foreigners who have children and grand-children born in the United States. As I see it, we're bass ackwards on this: this year some 780,000 people will become citizens of the United States. Maybe half that number will be allowed to come in and work (excluding agricultural workers.) I think we have the equation 180 degrees opposite of what it should be.
Click to expand...

Undocumented. You mean here ILLEALLY. If there is no documentation then they are not supposed to be here.

No question these illegal aliens (or undocumented for those without a pair who don't want to offend the lawless) have been here for several generations. That is because we have not had a leader like Trump who is willing to do his job and enforce our laws.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Undocumented. You mean here ILLEALLY. If there is no documentation then they are not supposed to be here.

No question these illegal aliens (or undocumented for those without a pair who don't want to offend the lawless) have been here for several generations. That is because we have not had a leader like Trump who is willing to do his job and enforce our laws.
Click to expand...


Didn't you hear? using the word "Illegal" is being banned. :roll:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...zed-news-media-shift-language-on-immigration/
 
jimbo said:
I worry if the states act as a pass through for federal money.
Click to expand...

My concern is getting the federal government out of the welfare business. If the states can then afford foreigners, who am I to judge... if they can't the most liberal states will want what you want.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Maybe that number is more accurate now with the work requirements for able bodied. I am curious where you got that# Have you seen that or is it just a wild guess?
Click to expand...

wild assed guess..

but, considering U.S. GDP is like 18.5 T... and SNAP costs about 70 B.. it's less than .005 of GDP.

18.5T(.005)=.0925T

.0925T=92.5B

So, .005 of GDP=92.5B

We would have to increase SNAP spending another 12.5 B to crack .005 of GDP spending on SNAP.

Billion to Trillion Converter, Chart -- EndMemo
 
Winston said:
I actually favor cutting back SNAP eligibility back to pre-'08 levels, in order to save that card to play. Because it acts as a direct stimulus should we face another economic downturn.
Click to expand...
When people need help, they need help. But the abuses of the system are insane. I'm gonna say, I bet snap grew more exponentially under Obama than any other POTUS.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
When people need help, they need help. But the abuses of the system are insane. I'm gonna say, I bet snap grew more exponentially under Obama than any other POTUS.
Click to expand...

That is possible. Remember tho, when Obama took the reins, the economy was hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a month. I credit him and his team with avoiding an all out Depression.

However, now that the economy has recovered, I support SNAP eligibility going back to pre-08 levels.
 
Visbek said:
Sorry, but that is incorrect.

They are not empowered to change federal law, so they can't grant residency or citizenship (of course).

However, if the governor of a state says "Hey immigrants, come on in, the weather's fine!" that is 100% legal.
Click to expand...
I am sure that is what an illegal alien ass kisser and anti-American would say.
 
Attusblack said:
What if a bunch of illegals showed up expecting whatever the governor offers and then they get deported, do you think the illegal would have an opportunity to sue that governor or that State?
Click to expand...
No.


Could the foreign govt sue the State or the Governor?
Click to expand...
No.


I'm not sure there is a clear cut answer to it
Click to expand...
There is.

A governor making a public pronouncement that "we welcome immigrants" and even "our state will not do one iota more than is required by federal law" is not violating any laws that I know of, or giving anyone any grounds for a lawsuit. I can't even imagine why you think this is the case.

Even if the elected official lied, and people acted on that lie, no law was actually broken.

What the official cannot do, as noted, is provide actual citizenship to anyone. That is a role exclusively reserved for the federal government. But he or she can say whatever she likes.


there certainly could be consequences to the State, the Governor, and the US itself, which is probably why no Governor or State has ever said such a thing.
Click to expand...
Try again

Jerry Brown: Immigrants, citizen or not, 'welcome in California'

And of course, numerous governors and mayors have refused to back down from "Sanctuary City" status... whatever that means. Chicago is even suing the DoJ over it.
 
Slingshot Bob said:
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/43175
Check out the huge increase
Click to expand...
Yes, it's HUGE!!!

Oh, wait. That doesn't really tell us what's going on.

Refugees and immigrants are also a very small percentage here. 1% of SNAP recipients are refugees. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible. As noted, recent immigrants have to wait to receive benefits. Neither of these are driving up the costs of the SNAP program.

Meanwhile, back in the real world: Safety nets were largely eviscerated during the Clinton years, by welfare reform efforts. Bush 43 relaxed the eligibility requirements for SNAP, which caused a small increase in recipients. Then the recession hit, and with so few programs to rely on, it is no surprise that millions signed up for SNAP.

In addition, somewhere around 20% of SNAP recipients are the elderly, most of whom only have Social Security as an income source. This group is growing, as our population ages.

Refugees and immigrants are not driving up the cost of SNAP.
 
Visbek said:
No.



No.



There is.

A governor making a public pronouncement that "we welcome immigrants" and even "our state will not do one iota more than is required by federal law" is not violating any laws that I know of, or giving anyone any grounds for a lawsuit. I can't even imagine why you think this is the case.

Even if the elected official lied, and people acted on that lie, no law was actually broken.

What the official cannot do, as noted, is provide actual citizenship to anyone. That is a role exclusively reserved for the federal government. But he or she can say whatever she likes.



Try again

Jerry Brown: Immigrants, citizen or not, 'welcome in California'

And of course, numerous governors and mayors have refused to back down from "Sanctuary City" status... whatever that means. Chicago is even suing the DoJ over it.
Click to expand...

Your article says Pena stated:
Peña said he wanted to make life better for Mexicans on both sides of the border.

"This is the other Mexico," he said of the United States, which has about 11 million Mexican immigrants.

Brown told the crowd at the event that they were welcome in the state regardless of their citizenship.
Click to expand...
You shouldn't hunt headlines, they always come back to bite you. Browns response was nothing more than a response to what Pena stated here in Sacramento.

And yet states and locals are required to transmit the required information as requested by Federal Law, no matter their claim of sanctuary or not.
Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes. - LA Times

This “anti-commandeering” doctrine, however, doesn’t protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn’t apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and “did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes,” it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom