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 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 261-265 next last
Comment #141 Removed by Moderator

To: riley1992
Better thread.
142 posted on 01/10/2002 2:21:00 AM PST by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Big Meanie
Exactly what happened with me. The quote was, "Oh, Ahm gonna defend the borders!" said with characteristic Texas Tough Guy vehemence. I thought, well, maybe the high legal numbers don't bother him, but the chaos of illegal numbers do, maybe he's a law'n'order type guy. Silly me....

Gore terrified me. That half-wit offspring of inbred Tennesee blue-bloods would do anything for power. He thought it was his birthright (but of course, GW doesn't, right?). I assumed Gore would have Mexican Army columns escorting the immigrantes up I-5 to LA. As long as it buys him votes...

Actually, Gore would have simply set up welcoming committees: as they crossed La Frontera, they would be handed food stamps, housing vouchers, voter registration (convienently filled out for the Democratic Party), union registration and a Medi-Cal lifetime free health care card.

143 posted on 01/10/2002 4:35:04 AM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: WRhine
It appears the immigrants themselves control the agenda. There have been so many that they now comprise a significant voting block, and no one wants to a) make them mad or b) get called a racist for advocating a reduction.

I wonder what would happen if the current immigrants were traditional - from Europe. Would the pro-immigration crowd on the left still be all for it?

History says they wouldn't: the unions and the left were the authors of immigration restriction in the '20s. It was Democratic party dogma for 80 years. But that was when it was their former neighbors in the old country trying to get in and work for lower wages.

144 posted on 01/10/2002 4:42:49 AM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: WRhine
Go back and answer my question first. On second thought....don't bother.
145 posted on 01/10/2002 5:34:26 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: dougherty
Yes, that is one way of opting out.
146 posted on 01/10/2002 5:40:08 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

Comment #147 Removed by Moderator

To: sailor4321
If they're here legally what's the problem? If they're here illegally, they should be deported (and shouldn't qualify for any welfare programs or other state aid in the interim).

Sure sounds simple - doesn't it. Instead we are giving every conceivable benefit to illegals - welfare, health care, free elementary education, discount university level education, you name it. GW is a fool if he thinks that this will win more than a small handful of votes. Dems will ALWAYS win the Socialist handout contest - every time, without question. I sincerely believe that GW is pandering to the people who WILL vote him out of office in 3 years. I have lost a tremendous amount of respect for GW on the whole illegals/Mexico pandering act that he has been running for the past year. I would back a conservative candidate over GW in a second - but there really aren't any around anymore or any that could get elected.

148 posted on 01/10/2002 10:35:50 AM PST by Sunnyvale CA Eng.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sailor4321
If they're here legally what's the problem?

I didn't have time to read all the posts, so excuse me if I'm repeating someone else:

The problem is that every legal immigrant has a sponsor that signed a paper promising to support the new immigrant if he/she is in financial trouble. The sponsors should be financially responsible for the immigrants they vouched for!!!

149 posted on 01/10/2002 4:38:26 PM PST by Arleigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sunnyvale CA Eng.
I would back a conservative candidate over GW in a second - but there really aren't any around anymore or any that could get elected.

Hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two socialists, or punish the Republicrats in hopes that they'll see the errors of their ways and hope that the Demopublicans don't destroy what's left of America in the meantime. That's the dilemma. Wish I had the answer....

150 posted on 01/10/2002 4:44:01 PM PST by Arleigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Big Meanie
My recollection about Bush was that he didn't commit himself on the immigration issue. Then one day he said, softly, in
response to a reporter's question, " I think we should enforce our borders" or something along those lines. That's all it took for me. I was going to vote for Buchanan, but switched to Bush because I was so afraid Gore might win.

I'm a firm believer that actions speak louder than words.  What is bush's record as governor.  As I recall it was not that the federal government should control our borders but rather the federal government should send more money to help care for illegals.

Further he was adamant in his condemnation of California's prop's that would have helped control illegal immigrants and the spending on them.

During his campaign he stressed that family values blaa blaa blaa didn't stop at the border, then late in the campaign he made the statement about protecting the borders.

Also if you recall his idea was to divide the INS into two groups.  Enforcement and the part of INS that helps those become citizens.  Ironically the budget he proposed for that was by far mostly for the later and little for enforcement.

Personally I think his statement about protecting our borders was in response to polls and didn't reflect his feelings or intentions at all.  Just my opinion.

I know I contacted his web site by e-mail several times trying to get his position and never received a reply from them, but then I didn't send a check with my e-mails either.:)

The only thing that surprises me about bush is how far he is willing to go on immigration.  I knew he was bad news on the immigration issue, I just didn't know how bad.

WarHawk42

151 posted on 01/10/2002 4:49:15 PM PST by WarHawk42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Arleigh
Yeah, right. There is no system to track illegals, let alone their "sponsors." Get real. It ain't happening. Besides, the sponsors in most cases crossed illegally without a cent and unable to support anyone, not even themselves. Sponsors are here to cash in also. Should read: "Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to live for free."
152 posted on 01/10/2002 5:08:19 PM PST by ZDaphne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Here is a copy of the letter I am mailing to Bush tomorrow:

President George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush:

I read in the January 9th edition of the New York Times that your administration has proposed to restore food stamps to legal immigrants and that this proposal would cost the federal government $2.1 billion over 10 years.

I am strongly against this! Didn't these people have sponsors that promised to support them?

Despite the fact that over a million Americans were laid off through no fault of their own last year - and the economy still shows no signs of recovery - your administration has chosen not to put any additional money into federal employment and training programs. In fact, Congress took back $110 million earmarked for dislocated workers! So why are you proposing to spend billions of our tax dollars on people who came to the US voluntarily?

I voted for you last year. I spent several cold weekends in front of the Vice President's Mansion protesting on your behalf during the Florida voting scandal. But if you sign a bill giving food stamps or other welfare benefits to immigrants who voluntarily came to this country, I promise that I shall never vote for your or another Republican again.

Sincerely,

Arleigh

153 posted on 01/10/2002 5:15:13 PM PST by Arleigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SentryoverAmerica
Got your flame proof clothes on?

Bush is NOT a conservative.

154 posted on 01/10/2002 5:16:31 PM PST by nonliberal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal
Bush is NOT a conservative.

Amen!

There is only one political party left in the US: The Demopublicratican Party. It has two wings: the pro-business wing and the anti-white wing. They squabble a lot in public so that people think there's still a difference.

155 posted on 01/10/2002 5:20:41 PM PST by Arleigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: ZDaphne
Yeah, right. There is no system to track illegals, let alone their "sponsors."

You missed one very important word.  Legal.  Legal immigrants are supposed to be sponsored so they don't become a burden on the tax payer.  The sponsor is supposed to guarantee that.

No there are no sponsors of illegal immigrants, they are by definition illegal.  They need to be tracked down and deported post haste.  Anyone hiring illegals should face heavy fines and jail time if they continue to hire illegals.  It can be controlled, there just isn't the will in Washington to do it.  Not just hispanics but all illegal immigrants.  We owe them nothing but a boot in the rear.

WarHawk42

156 posted on 01/10/2002 5:23:59 PM PST by WarHawk42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

Comment #157 Removed by Moderator

To: WarHawk42
Thanks for pointing that out to me. You are correct about the legals (as opposed to illegals)needing to have sponsors. However, I'm betting that there is no tracking of the sponsors that is worth a hoot, and no way to hold them responsible. And certainly not financially responsible; in fact that is downright laughable.
158 posted on 01/10/2002 5:31:07 PM PST by ZDaphne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: ZDaphne
I'm betting that there is no tracking of the sponsors that is worth a hoot, and no way to hold them responsible. And
certainly not financially responsible; in fact that is downright laughable.

I will go you one farther.  I would bet many are allowed in without sponsors.  One other thing.  As I recall immigration law it was also required they be able to speak english to be eligible for citizenship.

WarHawk42

159 posted on 01/10/2002 5:40:26 PM PST by WarHawk42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: SentryoverAmerica
Now who dares to call President Bush a "conservative"? Anyone? Anyone?

OHHHHHHH Plenty of kool-aide drinkers here...Many freeple sheeple

160 posted on 01/10/2002 5:43:31 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 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