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 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-265 next last
To: RCW2001
Where have all the Bush worshipers gone?
Abused the abuse button every one.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Cultic robots blowing air.
Try to reason, get a stare.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

"Tin-foil hatters" they called us all.
But all you morons have is gall
When will you ever learn?
When will you ever learn?
201 posted on 01/10/2002 7:43:36 PM PST by Hemlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SentryoverAmerica
Sorry. I learned my lesson. I've been converted and now I'm a Bush cultist. Any criticism of President Bush is bashing him. It doesn't matter what he does. If you don't like it and speak out you are bashing our Republican president.

Well, no more of that for me. I'm joining the team. You can bash our president just because he supports restoring welfare that Clinton cut, but not me. I'm just happy that a Republican is expanding the welfare state instead of a Democrat.

No matter what he does, at least he isn't a Democrat.

202 posted on 01/10/2002 7:44:02 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Where have all the Bush worshipers gone?
Abused the abuse button every one.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

Cultic robots blowing air.
Try to reason, get a stare.
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

"Tin-foil hatters" they called us all.
But all those morons have is gall
When will you ever learn?
When will you ever learn?

KKKKKKKKIIIIISSSSSSSSS MYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
203 posted on 01/10/2002 7:46:18 PM PST by Hemlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #204 Removed by Moderator

To: SentryoverAmerica
I'm not so sure about that. We lost more to conservative Christians who stayed home. (Have you noted lately that the administration has figured that fact now that they've had a chance to review that data from that election?)
205 posted on 01/10/2002 7:53:06 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
You sounded like you supported Bush at one time, why are you dissin' him now?

No cigar.  I never supported bush and immigration is one (and only one) big reason why.  Try reading post #151.  His immigration stand was no surprise to me.  Education was another big issue with me.  Did you know bush used clinton's Goals2000 and STW programs in Texas.  In fact Texas was the leading state in implementing Goals2000 and STW.

You wasn't around here before the election.  At least not posting.  If you had been you wouldn't even have asked that question.

Bush plainly told us he was going to expand the scope and power of government.  I listened.  Carefully.  I will not vote for that.  I will vote for what was once conservative values.  Smaller less intrusive government.  When a candidate in the republican party comes along who I can believe says he will do just that I will vote for him, but not until.  Meanwhile I will vote (and did), and I will vote for any candidate who shares my values.

WarHawk42

206 posted on 01/10/2002 7:53:59 PM PST by WarHawk42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: SentryoverAmerica
"Big difference. First, that crook Dan Rostenkowski ran Ways and Means. THAT is why the budget ballooned."

It ballooned under Reagan because he made many, many deals that a President has to make.

People here seem to forget that the President makes hundreds of deals under his 4 year term and some aren't what we want and some are down right discusting (Reagan not giving the military any raise in the late 80's). Yes, Ronnie did go along with this to get other things funded but if Bush suggested it now he would be hanged by everyone who voted for him. Ronnie took the hit for the good of the country and it went away soon after.

The foodstamp program costs we're talking about here is 500,000 million per year and this money would go to some other pork if it wasn't used for this.

It should also be pointed out that they don't give stamps out like they used to as they issue a credit/debit card that has the monthly money added each month--this has kept fraud way down the last two years.

Is it trading votes for dollars ? You bet you butt it is and I also bet 20 times as much gets cut from the budget that pisses off the dems as well. Do I like it--no way but I do understand the political reasoning behind it.

It's a pure political play !

207 posted on 01/10/2002 7:57:19 PM PST by america-rules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: WarHawk42
I was "around" before the election. In Florida, I am familiar with the school to work. But I still don't see it from your angle. Don't know that I want to, either! LOL
208 posted on 01/10/2002 7:59:27 PM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
But I still don't see it from your angle.  Don't know that I want to, either! LOL

To each their own.  You can believe in the tooth fairy if you want to.:)  Obviously you choose to ignore facts.  Your loss.

WarHawk42

209 posted on 01/10/2002 8:05:18 PM PST by WarHawk42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

Comment #210 Removed by Moderator

To: SentryoverAmerica
I thought 500k was earmarked for foodstamps. Also, are you positive he didn't cut spending in some other area?
211 posted on 01/10/2002 8:08:02 PM PST by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

Comment #212 Removed by Moderator

To: mrsmith
I understand that there are huge electoral rewards for this.

You are correct when you say it is wrong, but mistaken in saying that there will be electoral awards. Hispanics as a whole vote Democrat. They are not as lock-step as blacks, but their voting pattern will not change anytime soon.

What this will accomplish is the gradual dismantling of the historic 1996 welfare bill.

213 posted on 01/10/2002 8:12:19 PM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SentryoverAmerica
It's in the article of this thread.  RedBloodedAmerican seems to have a problem with reading comprehension.

Here is the quote from the article above.

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.

I highlighted it for RBA.:)

WarHawk42

214 posted on 01/10/2002 8:17:59 PM PST by WarHawk42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: SentryoverAmerica
You sound like you were on the inside of the Bush campaign. I know that you are disappointed in this new welfare program (as am I), but what impression did you get from inside the campaign on the kind of President that Bush would be? Are you surprised? Not surprised?

Was the campaign completely shocked by the election results?

Thanks! I am interested in the bird's eye view, so to speak.

215 posted on 01/10/2002 8:20:34 PM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
This can't be about getting Mexican votes. None of them are on welfare. Every Mexican who comes here, legally or illegally, is harder working, more conservative, more religious, and more moral, than anyone already here. They are just here because Americans don't want to work.

This has to be about getting some other vote. Maybe it's about getting the Asian or English vote but it can't be about pandering to the Mexicans. Besides President Bush wouldn't do that.

216 posted on 01/10/2002 8:25:15 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001

217 posted on 01/10/2002 8:32:36 PM PST by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
Sometimes in politics you pander to a group not because you expect their votes, but to symbolize your message to a much larger group.

Case in point, Bush meeting with homosexuals during the 2000 campaign. Now despite our gravely oversexed society, there just aren't enough activist homosexuals in the world to justify Bush spending any time at all with them to get their votes.

But Bush spent time with them to send a message to the voters in the mushy middle: I, George W. Bush, am open-minded. I am not a bigot. I care about all Americans. You can vote for me and not be worried that you will be embarrassed in front of your wine and cheese intellectual friends.

Having said that, I still believe that Mexican immigrants will vote Democrat, and I can't think of any constituency group that will be more likely to vote for Bush because of this. The socialists will vote Democrat regardless, because a Republican will never outspend a Democrat. Hispanics, blacks, welfare recepients: ditto Democrat.

218 posted on 01/10/2002 8:34:07 PM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
Yikes!  Is kennedy storing nuts for the winter or what?  His cheek looks like he has a mouthful of acorns.LOL  Maybe it's just stuffed with tax payer dollars.:)

WarHawk42

219 posted on 01/10/2002 8:38:56 PM PST by WarHawk42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
President Bush doesn't pander. He is restoring welfare that Clinton cut because he is a good conservative and knows that government needs to take care of people who don't work.
220 posted on 01/10/2002 8:42:31 PM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 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