New Reg would deport LEGAL immigrants who've EVER been on food stamps, medicaid

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't know what I think about this issue, but I do support lower levels of legal immigration, and an end to the lottery and chain migration.

I don't believe that we should be taking in immigrants that we can reasonably project will require entitlement monies to live here.  Of course, if someone comes to America, gets a job, works, hard, and then breaks their back before they become citizens and can't work; that's something else.  The question is a bit complicated, but I do believe that our immigrants should be people who have means of support.  And I think our immigration policy ought to reflect the fact that we have a difficult enough time finding jobs for low-skill workers without bringing in more such workers as competition.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Stephen Miller makes me anti-semitic.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Stephen Miller makes me anti-semitic.

...of all the things you could say about him, you chose the dumbest one. Congrats.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I don't believe that we should be taking in immigrants that we can reasonably project will require entitlement monies to live here.  Of course, if someone comes to America, gets a job, works, hard, and then breaks their back before they become citizens and can't work; that's something else.

Isn't the implication here that anyone who is on government assistance is incapable of "getting a job, working hard, and breaking their back"? Does that implication not trouble you?

[Badger]

Can we simply knowledge to things out of this? First, the people post illegal immigration are generally opposed to Legal immigration for the same reasons. Secondly, the fundamental aim of Trump's immigration policy is not to attack illegal immigration, or any esoteric rational analysis, but rather simply to reduce the non-white population of America. Anyone who denies either of these things is a God damn fool.


 But pray, I am more than willing to listen to your feeble explanations to the contrary. Please, still offer you or stroke jobs of the mango Mussolini.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Misleading thread title. This would simply be expanding a law already in place that limited access to green cards for immigrants on public cash benefits and make it include non-cash benefits as well.

I think this is a largely unnecessary move, but comparing it to Nazism is a joke...

This is horrifically disgusting, and the fact that bill f**king clinton was cool with it does nothing to change this.

Also:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just trying to hurt people who have a right to not be forced to stay in a violent, impoverished hellhole(A right which does not extend to the trump admin).

[Progressive Pessimist]

Stephen Miller makes me anti-semitic.

Ironically Stephen Miller's family is only in this country due to escaping antisemitism in the form of Russian pogroms. It's the exact same case with my ancestors and numerous other Jews in this country. It's upsetting to me that he can't see the irony of that in the policies he advocates for. I know you're being facetious here, but please don't associate the average Jew with this putz.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't believe that we should be taking in immigrants that we can reasonably project will require entitlement monies to live here.  Of course, if someone comes to America, gets a job, works, hard, and then breaks their back before they become citizens and can't work; that's something else.

Isn't the implication here that anyone who is on government assistance is incapable of "getting a job, working hard, and breaking their back"? Does that implication not trouble you?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why we should NOT be sending out the message, "WE DON'T WANT FREELOADERS!".  Really, why shouldn't we?  As a nation, we don't have a need for more unskilled immigrants who can't support themselves because we don't have sufficient jobs to provide for those low skill folks.  We don't have enough low skill jobs for our own people (and, yes, our own people come first). 

I'm not one who believes that those who mooch off public assistance are a bigger drain than giveaways to the top 1%, but there ARE people who are, indeed, moochers and malingerers, and people who have no intent of actually working and pulling their weight.  And, yes, I view this as a problem; a problem of ethos.  How is a society going to survive over time when it's individual members lack a sufficient work ethic?  How will a society maintain harmony when significant numbers of its members work harder at avoiding work than at a job?  As a proper Work Ethic edifies a society, sloth and laziness erodes a society. 

This is not an argument to do away with the societal safety nets, or to not be charitable toward those less fortunate.  But sloth and laziness are real just as much as bad luck and discrimination are, and the existence of these societal negatives should not be ignored in the formulation of public policy.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I don't believe that we should be taking in immigrants that we can reasonably project will require entitlement monies to live here.  Of course, if someone comes to America, gets a job, works, hard, and then breaks their back before they become citizens and can't work; that's something else.

Isn't the implication here that anyone who is on government assistance is incapable of "getting a job, working hard, and breaking their back"? Does that implication not trouble you?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why we should NOT be sending out the message, "WE DON'T WANT FREELOADERS!".  Really, why shouldn't we?  As a nation, we don't have a need for more unskilled immigrants who can't support themselves because we don't have sufficient jobs to provide for those low skill folks.  We don't have enough low skill jobs for our own people (and, yes, our own people come first). 

I'm not one who believes that those who mooch off public assistance are a bigger drain than giveaways to the top 1%, but there ARE people who are, indeed, moochers and malingerers, and people who have no intent of actually working and pulling their weight.  And, yes, I view this as a problem; a problem of ethos.  How is a society going to survive over time when it's individual members lack a sufficient work ethic?  How will a society maintain harmony when significant numbers of its members work harder at avoiding work than at a job?  As a proper Work Ethic edifies a society, sloth and laziness erodes a society. 

This is not an argument to do away with the societal safety nets, or to not be charitable toward those less fortunate.  But sloth and laziness are real just as much as bad luck and discrimination are, and the existence of these societal negatives should not be ignored in the formulation of public policy.

Minimum wage work(which you can't support yourself on) is essential to the economy, and people who do it work plenty hard and pull more than their weight. Its not their fault that companies underpay them.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't believe that we should be taking in immigrants that we can reasonably project will require entitlement monies to live here.  Of course, if someone comes to America, gets a job, works, hard, and then breaks their back before they become citizens and can't work; that's something else.

Isn't the implication here that anyone who is on government assistance is incapable of "getting a job, working hard, and breaking their back"? Does that implication not trouble you?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why we should NOT be sending out the message, "WE DON'T WANT FREELOADERS!".  Really, why shouldn't we?  As a nation, we don't have a need for more unskilled immigrants who can't support themselves because we don't have sufficient jobs to provide for those low skill folks.  We don't have enough low skill jobs for our own people (and, yes, our own people come first). 

I'm not one who believes that those who mooch off public assistance are a bigger drain than giveaways to the top 1%, but there ARE people who are, indeed, moochers and malingerers, and people who have no intent of actually working and pulling their weight.  And, yes, I view this as a problem; a problem of ethos.  How is a society going to survive over time when it's individual members lack a sufficient work ethic?  How will a society maintain harmony when significant numbers of its members work harder at avoiding work than at a job?  As a proper Work Ethic edifies a society, sloth and laziness erodes a society. 

This is not an argument to do away with the societal safety nets, or to not be charitable toward those less fortunate.  But sloth and laziness are real just as much as bad luck and discrimination are, and the existence of these societal negatives should not be ignored in the formulation of public policy.

Minimum wage work(which you can't support yourself on) is essential to the economy, and people who do it work plenty hard and pull more than their weight. Its not their fault that companies underpay them.

Then let's fill those positions with able-bodied American citizens and give them the public assistance they would qualify for at that wage level.

I'm certainly for doing something affimative in regards to the ever-increasing concentration of wealth amongst the top 1%, but that is very much a different conversation.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I don't believe that we should be taking in immigrants that we can reasonably project will require entitlement monies to live here.  Of course, if someone comes to America, gets a job, works, hard, and then breaks their back before they become citizens and can't work; that's something else.

Isn't the implication here that anyone who is on government assistance is incapable of "getting a job, working hard, and breaking their back"? Does that implication not trouble you?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why we should NOT be sending out the message, "WE DON'T WANT FREELOADERS!".  Really, why shouldn't we?  As a nation, we don't have a need for more unskilled immigrants who can't support themselves because we don't have sufficient jobs to provide for those low skill folks.  We don't have enough low skill jobs for our own people (and, yes, our own people come first). 

I'm not one who believes that those who mooch off public assistance are a bigger drain than giveaways to the top 1%, but there ARE people who are, indeed, moochers and malingerers, and people who have no intent of actually working and pulling their weight.  And, yes, I view this as a problem; a problem of ethos.  How is a society going to survive over time when it's individual members lack a sufficient work ethic?  How will a society maintain harmony when significant numbers of its members work harder at avoiding work than at a job?  As a proper Work Ethic edifies a society, sloth and laziness erodes a society. 

This is not an argument to do away with the societal safety nets, or to not be charitable toward those less fortunate.  But sloth and laziness are real just as much as bad luck and discrimination are, and the existence of these societal negatives should not be ignored in the formulation of public policy.

Minimum wage work(which you can't support yourself on) is essential to the economy, and people who do it work plenty hard and pull more than their weight. Its not their fault that companies underpay them.

Then let's fill those positions with able-bodied American citizens and give them the public assistance they would qualify for at that wage level.

I'm certainly for doing something affimative in regards to the ever-increasing concentration of wealth amongst the top 1%, but that is very much a different conversation.

Immigrants deserve those jobs just as much(from your supposed point of view I would think that documented(aka "legal") immigrants would deserve jobs as much as citizens. Unless... it's just an excuse for racism) as citizens, documented or not.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I don't believe that we should be taking in immigrants that we can reasonably project will require entitlement monies to live here.  Of course, if someone comes to America, gets a job, works, hard, and then breaks their back before they become citizens and can't work; that's something else.

Isn't the implication here that anyone who is on government assistance is incapable of "getting a job, working hard, and breaking their back"? Does that implication not trouble you?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why we should NOT be sending out the message, "WE DON'T WANT FREELOADERS!".  Really, why shouldn't we?  As a nation, we don't have a need for more unskilled immigrants who can't support themselves because we don't have sufficient jobs to provide for those low skill folks.  We don't have enough low skill jobs for our own people (and, yes, our own people come first). 

I'm not one who believes that those who mooch off public assistance are a bigger drain than giveaways to the top 1%, but there ARE people who are, indeed, moochers and malingerers, and people who have no intent of actually working and pulling their weight.  And, yes, I view this as a problem; a problem of ethos.  How is a society going to survive over time when it's individual members lack a sufficient work ethic?  How will a society maintain harmony when significant numbers of its members work harder at avoiding work than at a job?  As a proper Work Ethic edifies a society, sloth and laziness erodes a society. 

This is not an argument to do away with the societal safety nets, or to not be charitable toward those less fortunate.  But sloth and laziness are real just as much as bad luck and discrimination are, and the existence of these societal negatives should not be ignored in the formulation of public policy.

Again, the entire premise of this post is, if you take government assistance, you are a freeloader.

I'm not going to ask you if you know anybody on TANF (or someone who has a federally subsidized mortage loan, for that matter) because I know I'm going to get a sob story about how you know so many crackheads from your job, etc. But the blinders you're putting on to assume that anybody who receives federal subsidies is a freeloader when these people are just as often working 40 hours a week, raising children, paying sales tax, etc. are quite ridiculous and uninformed.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't believe that we should be taking in immigrants that we can reasonably project will require entitlement monies to live here.  Of course, if someone comes to America, gets a job, works, hard, and then breaks their back before they become citizens and can't work; that's something else.

Isn't the implication here that anyone who is on government assistance is incapable of "getting a job, working hard, and breaking their back"? Does that implication not trouble you?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why we should NOT be sending out the message, "WE DON'T WANT FREELOADERS!".  Really, why shouldn't we?  As a nation, we don't have a need for more unskilled immigrants who can't support themselves because we don't have sufficient jobs to provide for those low skill folks.  We don't have enough low skill jobs for our own people (and, yes, our own people come first). 

I'm not one who believes that those who mooch off public assistance are a bigger drain than giveaways to the top 1%, but there ARE people who are, indeed, moochers and malingerers, and people who have no intent of actually working and pulling their weight.  And, yes, I view this as a problem; a problem of ethos.  How is a society going to survive over time when it's individual members lack a sufficient work ethic?  How will a society maintain harmony when significant numbers of its members work harder at avoiding work than at a job?  As a proper Work Ethic edifies a society, sloth and laziness erodes a society. 

This is not an argument to do away with the societal safety nets, or to not be charitable toward those less fortunate.  But sloth and laziness are real just as much as bad luck and discrimination are, and the existence of these societal negatives should not be ignored in the formulation of public policy.

Again, the entire premise of this post is, if you take government assistance, you are a freeloader.

I'm not going to ask you if you know anybody on TANF (or someone who has a federally subsidized mortage loan, for that matter) because I know I'm going to get a sob story about how you know so many crackheads from your job, etc. But the blinders you're putting on to assume that anybody who receives federal subsidies is a freeloader when these people are just as often working 40 hours a week, raising children, paying sales tax, etc. are quite ridiculous and uninformed.

I don't have a problem with the safety net, and I recognize that folks are sometimes down on their luck.  I also realize that there are some folks whose earning capability is what it is.  They aren't going to work themselves up very much from where they are, and I'm OK with people like that getting help, even long-term. 

But I'm not OK with people not even trying to work, and there are people like that.  And I'm not talking about drug addicts and alcoholics; many of the actively addicted will at least try to work.  I mean people who are flat-out not willing to try to hold a job they don't like because it's work.

I would ask you this:  Is at least SOME degree of structural unemployment and generational poverty due to people not being willing to make their best efforts to gain and hold employment?  Is it at least a contributing factor to those problems?  And why would we want to allow more of such people to enter the US as immigrants, when we have enough problems with structurally unemployed American citizens? 

[Mister Mets]

President Trump considering new regulation that would deport legal immigrants who have ever been on food stamps, medicaid (even if not anymore):

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-admin-rule-would-deny-visas-green-cards-immigrants-who-n910791

Don't worry folks! They're totally not Nazi wanna-bes! You can tell because they wear cheap red hats instead of armbands with Swastikas, and wave the American flag alot!

<goes and quietly vomits>

If you are going to violate Godwin's Law, can you at least make a citation as to how exactly this is analagous to anything done by the Nazis (and not done by any non-totalitarian state?) Unless the crux of your argument is literally that both groups wear political clothing, in which case

Obviously denying green cards to immigrants determined to be public charges is the equivalent to mass murder.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Trump hates the working class: what else is new?

[Slander and/or Libel]

I don't believe that we should be taking in immigrants that we can reasonably project will require entitlement monies to live here.  Of course, if someone comes to America, gets a job, works, hard, and then breaks their back before they become citizens and can't work; that's something else.

Isn't the implication here that anyone who is on government assistance is incapable of "getting a job, working hard, and breaking their back"? Does that implication not trouble you?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why we should NOT be sending out the message, "WE DON'T WANT FREELOADERS!".  Really, why shouldn't we?  As a nation, we don't have a need for more unskilled immigrants who can't support themselves because we don't have sufficient jobs to provide for those low skill folks.  We don't have enough low skill jobs for our own people (and, yes, our own people come first). 

I'm not one who believes that those who mooch off public assistance are a bigger drain than giveaways to the top 1%, but there ARE people who are, indeed, moochers and malingerers, and people who have no intent of actually working and pulling their weight.  And, yes, I view this as a problem; a problem of ethos.  How is a society going to survive over time when it's individual members lack a sufficient work ethic?  How will a society maintain harmony when significant numbers of its members work harder at avoiding work than at a job?  As a proper Work Ethic edifies a society, sloth and laziness erodes a society. 

This is not an argument to do away with the societal safety nets, or to not be charitable toward those less fortunate.  But sloth and laziness are real just as much as bad luck and discrimination are, and the existence of these societal negatives should not be ignored in the formulation of public policy.

If it's mooching, then we should probably deny visas to anyone who's ever taken a tax deduction for a private jet, or taken a mortgage interest deduction above a certain amount, or exploited the carried interest loophole, etc.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Why was this not considered a problem when H1B visa holders were denied Green Cards as well.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't believe that we should be taking in immigrants that we can reasonably project will require entitlement monies to live here.  Of course, if someone comes to America, gets a job, works, hard, and then breaks their back before they become citizens and can't work; that's something else.

Isn't the implication here that anyone who is on government assistance is incapable of "getting a job, working hard, and breaking their back"? Does that implication not trouble you?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why we should NOT be sending out the message, "WE DON'T WANT FREELOADERS!".  Really, why shouldn't we?  As a nation, we don't have a need for more unskilled immigrants who can't support themselves because we don't have sufficient jobs to provide for those low skill folks.  We don't have enough low skill jobs for our own people (and, yes, our own people come first). 

I'm not one who believes that those who mooch off public assistance are a bigger drain than giveaways to the top 1%, but there ARE people who are, indeed, moochers and malingerers, and people who have no intent of actually working and pulling their weight.  And, yes, I view this as a problem; a problem of ethos.  How is a society going to survive over time when it's individual members lack a sufficient work ethic?  How will a society maintain harmony when significant numbers of its members work harder at avoiding work than at a job?  As a proper Work Ethic edifies a society, sloth and laziness erodes a society. 

This is not an argument to do away with the societal safety nets, or to not be charitable toward those less fortunate.  But sloth and laziness are real just as much as bad luck and discrimination are, and the existence of these societal negatives should not be ignored in the formulation of public policy.

If it's mooching, then we should probably deny visas to anyone who's ever taken a tax deduction for a private jet, or taken a mortgage interest deduction above a certain amount, or exploited the carried interest loophole, etc.

Mooching is not getting a benefit.  Mooching is deliberately refusing to work and manipulate for benefits.

The people who take tax deductions for these things usually do work in order to earn the money.  They may be greedy, but they aren't mooching. 

I dare you to say something negative about people who refuse to work, yet receive government benefits that would be considered part of the "safety net".

[Badger]

I don't believe that we should be taking in immigrants that we can reasonably project will require entitlement monies to live here.  Of course, if someone comes to America, gets a job, works, hard, and then breaks their back before they become citizens and can't work; that's something else.

Isn't the implication here that anyone who is on government assistance is incapable of "getting a job, working hard, and breaking their back"? Does that implication not trouble you?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why we should NOT be sending out the message, "WE DON'T WANT FREELOADERS!".  Really, why shouldn't we?  As a nation, we don't have a need for more unskilled immigrants who can't support themselves because we don't have sufficient jobs to provide for those low skill folks.  We don't have enough low skill jobs for our own people (and, yes, our own people come first). 

I'm not one who believes that those who mooch off public assistance are a bigger drain than giveaways to the top 1%, but there ARE people who are, indeed, moochers and malingerers, and people who have no intent of actually working and pulling their weight.  And, yes, I view this as a problem; a problem of ethos.  How is a society going to survive over time when it's individual members lack a sufficient work ethic?  How will a society maintain harmony when significant numbers of its members work harder at avoiding work than at a job?  As a proper Work Ethic edifies a society, sloth and laziness erodes a society. 

This is not an argument to do away with the societal safety nets, or to not be charitable toward those less fortunate.  But sloth and laziness are real just as much as bad luck and discrimination are, and the existence of these societal negatives should not be ignored in the formulation of public policy.

Again, the entire premise of this post is, if you take government assistance, you are a freeloader.

I'm not going to ask you if you know anybody on TANF (or someone who has a federally subsidized mortage loan, for that matter) because I know I'm going to get a sob story about how you know so many crackheads from your job, etc. But the blinders you're putting on to assume that anybody who receives federal subsidies is a freeloader when these people are just as often working 40 hours a week, raising children, paying sales tax, etc. are quite ridiculous and uninformed.

I don't have a problem with the safety net, and I recognize that folks are sometimes down on their luck.  I also realize that there are some folks whose earning capability is what it is.  They aren't going to work themselves up very much from where they are, and I'm OK with people like that getting help, even long-term. 

But I'm not OK with people not even trying to work, and there are people like that.  And I'm not talking about drug addicts and alcoholics; many of the actively addicted will at least try to work.  I mean people who are flat-out not willing to try to hold a job they don't like because it's work.

I would ask you this:  Is at least SOME degree of structural unemployment and generational poverty due to people not being willing to make their best efforts to gain and hold employment?  Is it at least a contributing factor to those problems?  And why would we want to allow more of such people to enter the US as immigrants, when we have enough problems with structurally unemployed American citizens? 

The answer to this question, Fuzzy, is that sort of generational unemployment is far less present in immigrant communities than among native born Americans of all races.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't believe that we should be taking in immigrants that we can reasonably project will require entitlement monies to live here.  Of course, if someone comes to America, gets a job, works, hard, and then breaks their back before they become citizens and can't work; that's something else.

Isn't the implication here that anyone who is on government assistance is incapable of "getting a job, working hard, and breaking their back"? Does that implication not trouble you?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why we should NOT be sending out the message, "WE DON'T WANT FREELOADERS!".  Really, why shouldn't we?  As a nation, we don't have a need for more unskilled immigrants who can't support themselves because we don't have sufficient jobs to provide for those low skill folks.  We don't have enough low skill jobs for our own people (and, yes, our own people come first). 

I'm not one who believes that those who mooch off public assistance are a bigger drain than giveaways to the top 1%, but there ARE people who are, indeed, moochers and malingerers, and people who have no intent of actually working and pulling their weight.  And, yes, I view this as a problem; a problem of ethos.  How is a society going to survive over time when it's individual members lack a sufficient work ethic?  How will a society maintain harmony when significant numbers of its members work harder at avoiding work than at a job?  As a proper Work Ethic edifies a society, sloth and laziness erodes a society. 

This is not an argument to do away with the societal safety nets, or to not be charitable toward those less fortunate.  But sloth and laziness are real just as much as bad luck and discrimination are, and the existence of these societal negatives should not be ignored in the formulation of public policy.

Again, the entire premise of this post is, if you take government assistance, you are a freeloader.

I'm not going to ask you if you know anybody on TANF (or someone who has a federally subsidized mortage loan, for that matter) because I know I'm going to get a sob story about how you know so many crackheads from your job, etc. But the blinders you're putting on to assume that anybody who receives federal subsidies is a freeloader when these people are just as often working 40 hours a week, raising children, paying sales tax, etc. are quite ridiculous and uninformed.

I don't have a problem with the safety net, and I recognize that folks are sometimes down on their luck.  I also realize that there are some folks whose earning capability is what it is.  They aren't going to work themselves up very much from where they are, and I'm OK with people like that getting help, even long-term. 

But I'm not OK with people not even trying to work, and there are people like that.  And I'm not talking about drug addicts and alcoholics; many of the actively addicted will at least try to work.  I mean people who are flat-out not willing to try to hold a job they don't like because it's work.

I would ask you this:  Is at least SOME degree of structural unemployment and generational poverty due to people not being willing to make their best efforts to gain and hold employment?  Is it at least a contributing factor to those problems?  And why would we want to allow more of such people to enter the US as immigrants, when we have enough problems with structurally unemployed American citizens? 

The answer to this question, Fuzzy, is that sort of generational unemployment is far less present in immigrant communities than among native born Americans of all races.

I might agree to this to a point.

I live and work in Florida, where hiring immigrant construction help is routine.  Many contractors hire immigrants (including illegal immigrants) to perform construction work, and they work cheaper than Americans.  As many of these folks are working off the books, the "cheaper" part is made cheaper than cheap because the employers skimp on workers comp.  Who pays for the employee's broken leg (or broken back, for that matter) in case of an injury?  The answer is "the taxpayers"; it depletes taxpayer funds that go to indigent care.

Is it unreasonable to think that these workers are keeping our low skilled workers from doing better than they're doing?  Do we not have more of an obligation to our own citizens than we do to foreigners, however well-disposed to us they may be?

[Badger]

I don't believe that we should be taking in immigrants that we can reasonably project will require entitlement monies to live here.  Of course, if someone comes to America, gets a job, works, hard, and then breaks their back before they become citizens and can't work; that's something else.

Isn't the implication here that anyone who is on government assistance is incapable of "getting a job, working hard, and breaking their back"? Does that implication not trouble you?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why we should NOT be sending out the message, "WE DON'T WANT FREELOADERS!".  Really, why shouldn't we?  As a nation, we don't have a need for more unskilled immigrants who can't support themselves because we don't have sufficient jobs to provide for those low skill folks.  We don't have enough low skill jobs for our own people (and, yes, our own people come first). 

I'm not one who believes that those who mooch off public assistance are a bigger drain than giveaways to the top 1%, but there ARE people who are, indeed, moochers and malingerers, and people who have no intent of actually working and pulling their weight.  And, yes, I view this as a problem; a problem of ethos.  How is a society going to survive over time when it's individual members lack a sufficient work ethic?  How will a society maintain harmony when significant numbers of its members work harder at avoiding work than at a job?  As a proper Work Ethic edifies a society, sloth and laziness erodes a society. 

This is not an argument to do away with the societal safety nets, or to not be charitable toward those less fortunate.  But sloth and laziness are real just as much as bad luck and discrimination are, and the existence of these societal negatives should not be ignored in the formulation of public policy.

Again, the entire premise of this post is, if you take government assistance, you are a freeloader.

I'm not going to ask you if you know anybody on TANF (or someone who has a federally subsidized mortage loan, for that matter) because I know I'm going to get a sob story about how you know so many crackheads from your job, etc. But the blinders you're putting on to assume that anybody who receives federal subsidies is a freeloader when these people are just as often working 40 hours a week, raising children, paying sales tax, etc. are quite ridiculous and uninformed.

I don't have a problem with the safety net, and I recognize that folks are sometimes down on their luck.  I also realize that there are some folks whose earning capability is what it is.  They aren't going to work themselves up very much from where they are, and I'm OK with people like that getting help, even long-term. 

But I'm not OK with people not even trying to work, and there are people like that.  And I'm not talking about drug addicts and alcoholics; many of the actively addicted will at least try to work.  I mean people who are flat-out not willing to try to hold a job they don't like because it's work.

I would ask you this:  Is at least SOME degree of structural unemployment and generational poverty due to people not being willing to make their best efforts to gain and hold employment?  Is it at least a contributing factor to those problems?  And why would we want to allow more of such people to enter the US as immigrants, when we have enough problems with structurally unemployed American citizens? 

The answer to this question, Fuzzy, is that sort of generational unemployment is far less present in immigrant communities than among native born Americans of all races.

I might agree to this to a point.

I live and work in Florida, where hiring immigrant construction help is routine.  Many contractors hire immigrants (including illegal immigrants) to perform construction work, and they work cheaper than Americans.  As many of these folks are working off the books, the "cheaper" part is made cheaper than cheap because the employers skimp on workers comp.  Who pays for the employee's broken leg (or broken back, for that matter) in case of an injury?  The answer is "the taxpayers"; it depletes taxpayer funds that go to indigent care.

Is it unreasonable to think that these workers are keeping our low skilled workers from doing better than they're doing?  Do we not have more of an obligation to our own citizens than we do to foreigners, however well-disposed to us they may be?

But they aren't, Fuzzy. Remember, your state doesn't have an income tax. The state's tax base is overwhelmingly split between sales and property taxes (with a minuscule share coming from corporate income taxes). Immigrants pay as much as another other Floridian with the amount tacked on to purchases, and a number further own taxable property, thus paying a greater share than even native born Floridians!

Regarding the whole jobs thing, remember immigrants provide jobs at least as much as they "steal" them. They buy groceries, rent, cars, and all sorts of commodities that support the jobs of those they sell to, just like the rest of us wage earners. Just look at various rust belt cities whose moribund economies and dwindling populations were revitalized by the influx of immigrants. Likewise, consider those rural communities who went through a massive ICE raid only to discover the next morning a huge chunk of the local economy literally disappeared overnight.

This doesn't even get into the whole "immigrants only take jobs Americans don't want" thing (which I'm unsure about). Nor the more compelling fact that perhaps the biggest source of income deflation caused by immigrants can be directly tied to immigrant employees not being able to push for raises, because their legal immigration status is directly tied to their current employer. Not to mention unscrupulous business owners employing the undocumented have repeatedly shown a willingness to threaten them with ICE the minute they get uppity and demand another 50 cents an hour.

Liberalize immigration laws to allow more job mobility among visa holders, and allow the undocumented to come out of the shadows so their bosses can't hold deportation over their held to keep wages--and their workers--in line, then we'll all see even greater detachment between immigration and retarded wages, though not that there's much of a connection to begin with.

[Former President tack50]

While I can see an argument for restricting food stamps and other benefits to only US citizens (though IMO permanent legal residents should get them as well after a wait period, say 5-10 years); they shouldn't be deported for using benefits.

At the absolute worst just cut their benefits but allow them to stay.

[IceSpear]

Trump hates the working class: what else is new?

But the "white working class" told me he was #populist , unlike elitist neoliberal Hillary Clinton who wanted to raise the minimum wage, expand healthcare, fund job retraining programs for Appalachia, etc.

[Intell]

Oh yes the problem is the poor, victimized immigrant working class. Not rich immigrants who jack up prices in major cities, or who live here and don't pay taxes. They're not mooching whatsoever.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I don't believe that we should be taking in immigrants that we can reasonably project will require entitlement monies to live here.  Of course, if someone comes to America, gets a job, works, hard, and then breaks their back before they become citizens and can't work; that's something else.

Isn't the implication here that anyone who is on government assistance is incapable of "getting a job, working hard, and breaking their back"? Does that implication not trouble you?

For the life of me, I can't figure out why we should NOT be sending out the message, "WE DON'T WANT FREELOADERS!".  Really, why shouldn't we?  As a nation, we don't have a need for more unskilled immigrants who can't support themselves because we don't have sufficient jobs to provide for those low skill folks.  We don't have enough low skill jobs for our own people (and, yes, our own people come first). 

I'm not one who believes that those who mooch off public assistance are a bigger drain than giveaways to the top 1%, but there ARE people who are, indeed, moochers and malingerers, and people who have no intent of actually working and pulling their weight.  And, yes, I view this as a problem; a problem of ethos.  How is a society going to survive over time when it's individual members lack a sufficient work ethic?  How will a society maintain harmony when significant numbers of its members work harder at avoiding work than at a job?  As a proper Work Ethic edifies a society, sloth and laziness erodes a society. 

This is not an argument to do away with the societal safety nets, or to not be charitable toward those less fortunate.  But sloth and laziness are real just as much as bad luck and discrimination are, and the existence of these societal negatives should not be ignored in the formulation of public policy.

If it's mooching, then we should probably deny visas to anyone who's ever taken a tax deduction for a private jet, or taken a mortgage interest deduction above a certain amount, or exploited the carried interest loophole, etc.

Mooching is not getting a benefit.  Mooching is deliberately refusing to work and manipulate for benefits.

The people who take tax deductions for these things usually do work in order to earn the money.  They may be greedy, but they aren't mooching. 

I dare you to say something negative about people who refuse to work, yet receive government benefits that would be considered part of the "safety net".

If this is a cost-benefit analysis, it may well be that the cost of a wealthy, rapacious immigrant who works in finance and exploits tax loopholes to save himself boatloads of money at the expense of the government is WAY LESS worth it than somebody working a minimum wage job who also gets food stamps because the minimum wage is shamefully low.