http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/draft-executive-orders-on-immigration/2315/ Seems like it's from a plausible source. Save $100 billion a year by cutting welfare to illegal immigrants, sponsors of aliens legally in the US to pay for them rather than let them claim welfare, new standards to determine if a legal alien is likely to go on welfare and if so, deny them entry and stopping birth tourism. It's about time.
Social support prevents crime. Hungry people steal- I know. No society can remove social security nets without expecting massive surges in crime and too many prisoners for its prisons. Whoever thought that welfare cuts would be cheaper is a dumbass. It's an emotive appeal for votes. Don't get sucked in.
Surely you jest? As a former cop I know from experience that all my 'regulars' were on welfare. They spent all day stoned or sleeping then went out in the evening burglarizing houses. No matter how much money you give them it will never be enough and they will always supplement it with crime. As they don't work they also have all the free time in the world to plan their next criminal escapade. As for the post, the welfare payments will be stopped for illegal immigrants, who by definition are criminals already.
Hungry people steal so let's steal for them. Trump doesn't need votes. He has 4 years of whatever he wants.
There's no relationship between poverty and crime. Theft occurs, because scummy bad people are opportunistic.
It seems to me that your job was to help incarcerate those who steal- so you have to agree that there are expenses involved in the punishment of crime- your paychecks , the courts and the prison services to name but three. That's my first point. Secondly, it's absurd to suggest that hunger does not precipitate theft. Anybody so stating should be put in a locked room with somebody else's dinner. So I don't doubt that your ' regulars ' are difficult indeed- but social security provides for far more people than those and the removal of the security net would- I still maintain- swell the numbers of ' regulars ' substantially- ergo the costs involved would substantially increase. How many people are involved in issuing a social security check compared to the numbers involved in policing, maintaining the courts and supervising prisoners ? Again- the ' dodge ' answer to that is that poverty does not turn people to crime. What a thoroughly laughable suggestion.
Your post fails to mention 'illegal immigrant' once, and the whole point of the thread is that illegal immigrants will no longer receive welfare. Yes it will possibly increase crime in the short term until all the illegals have been returned home, but the increased cost of this crime will be offset by the not insignificant savings, and the welfare can then be directed to the intended recipients, not illegal immigrants.
That would be because the link to the draft order appears to target ' aliens '- and not ' illegal aliens '- a term you've used several times already. Sure, illegals are mentioned in the link- but the draft is directed at all aliens- and that's simply unacceptable.
The Washington Post is a "plausible" source, how accurate, honest or truthful do you think they are? The link provided merely displays a document purportedly issued by "The White House", does the Washington Post have access to documents from The White House, how did they get this one? I found nothing outrageous or objectionable in the 8 pages of the purported White House document, but other sources reporting on the proposed Executive Order make reference to specifically excluding Green Card holders from coverage, which this document from the Washington Post doesn't mention. The previous Executive Order banning immigrants from seven countries afflicted by Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, was flawed by including Green Card holders who would have the right to notice and a hearing prior to revocation of their immigration status. Unless the new Executive Order banning immigrants from countries afflicted by Islamic fundamentalist terrorism excludes application to Green Card holders it will be flawed and foreseeably overturned by the courts.
Nearly every other western country has standards to determine the ability of immigration applicants to support themselves. I don't know about the EU but Australia even screens for specific education and skills which can vary from year to year.
Immigrants and refugees are quite different, an immigrant is someone who arrives looking for work, the refugee is fleeing persecution. Most governments (including the US) have an obligation to shelter refugees, they establish procedures to ascertain the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution, which when shown sustains the granting of asylum. Governments have no additional obligations to provide refugees who are granted asylum housing, education, transport, public assistance or employment. Most governments recognize refugees will require some support and therefore favor granting asylum to those who have relatives lawfully resident in the country, charitable sponsorship and ties to the community where they are going to live. Governments admit immigrants based on an expectation they will be employed and their work will benefit the nation, documentation showing the immigrant's education, skills, accomplishments and experience are required and verified, relatives and sponsors help, but are not as important if the applicant's credentials are good. Immigrants and refugees who are granted asylum become residents and most governments then offer them the same support a citizen may have.
Let's take a Somali 'refugee' for example. He leaves Somalia then travels through Ethiopia, South Africa, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Columbia, Panama, Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico and into the US. This is not the route you would travel if you were only looking to escape a war, but only if you were looking for the best financial deal. http://fusion.net/story/217556/i-hope-that-somali-refugee-i-met-in-the-panamanian-jungle-accepts-my-facebook-friend-request/ Or how about a Syrian 'refugee'? He leaves Syria then travels through Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary, Vienna and into Germany. This is not the route you would travel if you were only looking to escape a war, but only if you were looking for the best financial deal. https://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/here-is-the-long-route-many-refugees-take-to-travel-from-syr?utm_term=.xwMGE9wno#.nm3m3 wJ6B Admittedly a British right wing video but the 'refugees' admit that it's for the money, not safety. [video=youtube;3Ve3QiG56OQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ve3QiG56OQ[/video]
So if it specifically says illegal aliens you'd be for it or are you just obfuscating? - - - Updated - - - Sounds reasonable
You appear to have twisted the facts to suit your bias. Criminality is not the ONLY likely outcome of ending social security nets. Sickness is another. Now you can say ' Pay people not to be sick. Only the left could come up with that logic '. Or you could say ' Pay people not to be homeless. Only the left could come up with that logic ' - and you'd be closer to the truth. Social benefits programs are associated with the Left- and they really do curtail criminality, sickness and homelessness. Incidentally- who pays snitches ? Only Democrat cops ?
The routes taken by refugees are a concern because the obligation to provide asylum arises as soon as they reach a place safe from persecution. This will depend on the relationship of that place with where they flee from. The Syrian fleeing daesh plausibly would be safe from persecution once he crossed the 'front' into territory controlled by some opposing force (Syria's government or rebel forces fighting daesh). The Syrian who continues his flight into Turkey, then Greece or Macedonia and then north, is not fleeing persecution but pursuing prosperity. Actual Syrian refugees have found miserable shelter safe from persecution on Syrian government-held territory, in Jordan and Turkey. Hundreds of thousands of them survive in deplorable encampments where NGOs, the UN and charitable organizations try to verify their condition and get them admitted by western governments.
I specifically answered a person who said give people welfare or they will commit crimes and your attempt to twist my words is a fail
Social spending to assist immigrants is illogical and counterproductive, a government should admit immigrants to benefit the nation, invite people who can contribute the most. This is the theory behind immigration policies everywhere. If a government instead offers immigrants all sorts of benefits it draws in people who are dependent and do not benefit the nation instead draining it's resorces.
I directly addressed it, you just didn't like my answer so you turned to obfuscation as is the leftist SOP when they are losing.
