Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House Shifts on Welfare Law; Food Stamps for Legal Immigrants
New York Times ^

Posted on 01/09/2002 5:00:20 PM PST by RCW2001



January 9, 2002

White House Shifts on Welfare Law; Food Stamps for Legal Immigrants

By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 — The Bush administration proposed today to restore food stamps to legal immigrants, whose eligibility for benefits was severely restricted by the 1996 welfare law.

The White House said that in the budget President Bush will send to Congress in early February, at least 363,000 people would qualify for food stamps under a proposal that would cost the federal government $2.1 billion over 10 years.

The proposal, or something like it, has an excellent chance of becoming law. The Senate is considering such changes as part of a far-reaching bill to reauthorize farm and nutrition programs.

The welfare bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 made immigrants ineligible for food stamps and many other forms of assistance financed with federal money. Supporters of the ban, most of them Republicans, argued that federal benefits drew immigrants to the United States and then discouraged their work effort after they got here.

But today, with the country in a recession that is hurting immigrants, and fighting a war on terrorism that has targeted some immigrants, Mr. Bush is looking for ways to show his commitment to them as well as to addressing domestic problems — a transition his father failed to make effectively a decade ago after the Persian Gulf war. Moreover, many of those who would benefit from the food stamps are Hispanic Americans, whom the White House is ardently courting.

As Mr. Clinton did as well, President Bush is selectively disclosing parts of his budget in advance — specifically, those proposals likely to win political support for the president.

Antihunger groups and Hispanic groups were enthusiastic about Mr. Bush's proposal, without suggesting any ulterior motive.

"This is an enormous step forward, for which the president should be congratulated," said Cecilia Munoz, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino civil rights group. "Mr. Bush did not speak out on this in the presidential campaign, and he had not done so since he assumed office."

As governor of Texas and as president, Mr. Bush has taken pride in his good relations with Hispanic Americans, although the Republican Party is split on how aggressively to go after Hispanic voters.

Some Republicans have alienated Hispanic voters with proposals for a restrictionist immigration policy. But Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser, said earlier this year that capturing a bigger share of Hispanic voters was "our mission and our goal" and would require assiduous work by "all of us in every way."

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the federal government has detained more than 1,100 noncitizens for questioning and has stepped up enforcement of the immigration laws. Mr. Bush has insisted that he is waging war on terrorists, not immigrants, and his food stamp proposal can be cited to support that claim.

James D. Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, an antihunger group, said: "It's really positive that the administration wants to extend food stamp benefits to this group of legal immigrants. We are delighted the administration is supporting this."

The economy is much worse now than in 1996, when Mr. Clinton signed the welfare bill. "Immigrants have been hit hard by the economic downturn," Ms. Munoz said, "and there's no safety net for those who arrived after 1996."

Welfare and food stamp rolls have plummeted since 1996, and members of Congress express much less concern now about being overwhelmed with the programs' cost, even though budget surpluses have evaporated and Mr. Bush has emphasized holding down costs. Also, advocates for immigrants have made some progress on Capitol Hill by appealing to the American sense of justice.

"This will restore justice to people who work hard, pay taxes and play an incredibly important role in our economy," Ms. Munoz said. "It is unreasonable for somebody who works hard and is laid off to have no access to food for his family."



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: hughhewitt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 261-265 next last
To: RCW2001
Why does this seem to fit so well here?

BUMPER STICKER FOR YOU

81 posted on 01/09/2002 7:51:07 PM PST by stlrocket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WRhine
I'm willing to give Bush some latitude with legal immigrants that are already here -- but could we have one, little, teensy weensy show of a real effort to curb this overwhelming immigration?

If we keep up this endless escalation of immigrant vote pandering, Vincente Fox will be elected POTUS in 2004, followed by Mullah Omar in 2008.

To paraphrase that guy on SNL: "I just want America to survive, is that so bad?"

82 posted on 01/09/2002 7:51:10 PM PST by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

Comment #83 Removed by Moderator

To: anniegetyourgun
Who was the last President (in your lifetime) to achieve that to your satisfaction?

So, as illegal immigration has grown from a minor problem that was easy to ignore into a full-blown crisis is your answer to imply that it is an intractable problem now? Get used to it? Better learn Spanish?

84 posted on 01/09/2002 7:53:44 PM PST by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
My suggestions: establish a guest-worker program with teeth and severe penalties (total asset forfeiture for any violation of the law), no family reunification for non-citizens, deportation of illegals, and no welfare for anyone.

Your suggestions have no possibility of being enacted. But some sort of guest worker program is a good idea. That won't happen either, for a variety of reasons. I have lived in California my whole life, 51 years. We can discuss the state of the state another time. It is somewhat more complicated than your description. You just don't see the millions of middle class Hispanics, because they tend to be dispersed in middle class Anglo neighborhoods.

85 posted on 01/09/2002 7:53:52 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Crabcake
The term has meaning. What would be more honest is for you to say that you welcome the "divisiveness."
86 posted on 01/09/2002 7:55:04 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: codeword
So what? I didn't say it was going to work. Just that this is what they are doing.

LOL  You keep throwing this stuff out and then getting defensive about it.

Bush had a 15 point lead in the last election and managed with his cadre of pollsters, analysts and advisors to lose the whole 15 points.  Only by the grace of Nader did he win.

WarHawk42

87 posted on 01/09/2002 7:56:46 PM PST by WarHawk42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

Comment #88 Removed by Moderator

To: browardchad
I'm willing to give Bush some latitude with legal immigrants that are already here -- but could we have one, little, teensy weensy show of a real effort to curb this overwhelming immigration?

I know what you are talking about but I wouldn't hold your breath on ANY immigration reform with this administration. They get their immigration and trade policies straight out of the WSJ editorial page. Money walks in this case.

89 posted on 01/09/2002 7:57:47 PM PST by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Torie
You just don't see the millions of middle class Hispanics, because they tend to be dispersed in middle class Anglo neighborhoods.

I grew up with them. None of them need food stamps.

I'm aware that my proposals won't be enacted, and that won't disappoint me terribly.

Surrender will.


90 posted on 01/09/2002 7:58:04 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Opting out (that is, staying home or voting for a single-digit type) is not the answer. But it seems some here are planning to do just that. And, of course, if they aren't going to be in the ballgame, they are hardly in a position to complain about the calls.

President@whitehouse.gov

91 posted on 01/09/2002 7:58:17 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Bravo!! Sabertooth for President! (A Fellow Californian who knows from whence you speak!)
92 posted on 01/09/2002 7:59:03 PM PST by ZDaphne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: stlrocket
LOL  Love the bumper sticker.:)

WarHawk42

93 posted on 01/09/2002 7:59:11 PM PST by WarHawk42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: WRhine
I don't think I said any of that, but you are good at putting words on my screen.
94 posted on 01/09/2002 7:59:29 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
"I'm aware that my proposals won't be enacted, and that won't disappoint me terribly. Surrender will."

They are all going over to Cuba now - so when do the boat people start sailing again?? We need more immigrants!!!

95 posted on 01/09/2002 8:01:19 PM PST by LADY J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Opting out (that is, staying home or voting for a single-digit type) is not the answer.

And just who are you going to vote for when the republican party becomes the dinosaur of politics?

WarHawk42

96 posted on 01/09/2002 8:04:05 PM PST by WarHawk42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Opting out (that is, staying home or voting for a single-digit type) is not the answer. But it seems some here are planning to do just that. And, of course, if they aren't going to be in the ballgame, they are hardly in a position to complain about the calls.

Going along with a betrayal of fundamental principles isn't the answer. If President Bush thinks he can win enough Hipanic votes with this betrayal, he needs to run a savvy cost-benefit analyis. If he think's it's political gain, I want History to record him as mistaken.

Where is the goundswell for handouts for immigrants?


97 posted on 01/09/2002 8:04:18 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: LADY J
We need more immigrants!!!

If we didn't have welfare, we probably wouldn't.

Not that I'm against immigration, but why should we keep policies that make us needy for it?


98 posted on 01/09/2002 8:07:57 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
I don't think I said any of that, but you are good at putting words on my screen.

You implied it, as I said. Go back and reread my post. If you have another different opinion don't be afraid of stating it.

99 posted on 01/09/2002 8:08:30 PM PST by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: LADY J
They are all going over to Cuba now - so when do the boat people start sailing again?? We need more immigrants!!!

Yes, we are running low on Castro's criminals. Per Affirmative Action we need another million. Criminals are people too.

100 posted on 01/09/2002 8:10:18 PM PST by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 261-265 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson