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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 261-265 next last
To: max61
In a confused, reality impaired way you are correct.

Gee, thanks!

61 posted on 01/09/2002 7:32:36 PM PST by codeword
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: kwyjibo
Why can't the alternative be Alan Keyes?

Keyes is too honest and too smart to ever get elected.

62 posted on 01/09/2002 7:33:43 PM PST by codeword
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
President Reagan had to concede, kicking and screaming of course!, on some spending items the "rats of the day" insisted upon, in order to pass his tax-cut/defense buildup legislation.

Perhaps...GWB is reading the 'playbook' one chapter ahead of the 'rats' on this one.?

This isn't a concession, this is a White House proposal while he's riding at 80% in the polls. This is a stab in the back, and I sure hope I'm polled this week.

79, 78, 77...


63 posted on 01/09/2002 7:34:38 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
I understand your point of view. The larger problem is encouraging immigration because of welfare magnetism, is not desirable. It is an empirical issue has to just how powerful that magnet is. But if folks are here legally, differentiating has its downside. It is divisive, and somewhat difficult to administer. And letting folks live in squalor, and the affect on their kids, while in our midst, poses problems to. Tough issue.
64 posted on 01/09/2002 7:34:48 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

Comment #65 Removed by Moderator

To: Sabertooth
Thanks for the ping. Looks like lots of people unhappy that this President doesn't do 100% of what they want 100% of the time. Perhaps one day they will find that candidate and he will win 100% of the time, I'm sure.
66 posted on 01/09/2002 7:37:39 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Crabcake
"Are there Republicans in this administration? You could have fooled me. Tell me.... which ones are Repubs?"

I think they are the ones passing all the RATS pork loaded spending bills.

67 posted on 01/09/2002 7:38:37 PM PST by LADY J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

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

1) They aren't citizens.

2) If they want to be here, taxpayers should be under no obligation to support them.

3) I have enough problems with giving citizens food stamps and welfare from the government. Poverty is generally a choice. Even when it is not, feeding the institutionalized poor-by-choice or temporary poor by-circumstances would best be handled by private organizations such as churches, funded by voluntary private donations, not the government.

68 posted on 01/09/2002 7:40:41 PM PST by Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Thanks for the ping. Looks like lots of people unhappy that this President doesn't do 100% of what they want 100% of the time. Perhaps one day they will find that candidate and he will win 100% of the time, I'm sure.

I just want this president to enforce the integrity of OUR BORDERS and to UPHOLD our immigration LAWS. Is that TOO MUCH to ASK?

69 posted on 01/09/2002 7:41:10 PM PST by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: codeword
Maybe. But I think President Bush has a whole crowd of pollsters and analysts and advisors that are telling him otherwise, and he is listening.

Bush one and Bob Dole had a whole crowd (Probably a lot of the same ones) of pollsters, analysts and advisors to.........and they lost.

WarHawk42

70 posted on 01/09/2002 7:41:19 PM PST by WarHawk42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Torie
But if folks are here legally, differentiating has its downside. It is divisive, and somewhat difficult to administer. And letting folks live in squalor, and the affect on their kids, while in our midst, poses problems too.

If I might ask, how long ave you been in CA?

I've been here all forty years of my life, and the state is in decline. Middle class neighborhoods are in retreat in the San Fernando Valley, as elsewhere. This proposal will be yet a further magnet for more immigrants, legal and illegal, when we haven't yet assimialted the ones we have. Meantime, underclass blacks in this state are hurt most of all, by the crowd of non-citizens at the entry rungs of the economic ladder.

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.


71 posted on 01/09/2002 7:43:40 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: WRhine
If you are a strong believer in the Constitution you are considered a terrorist by the FBI.  The only conclusion I draw from that is the federal government has strayed so far from the Constitution they fear anyone who still believes in it.

WarHawk42

72 posted on 01/09/2002 7:43:59 PM PST by WarHawk42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: codeword
Actually the correct word is globalist. Many pople have known he was for a long time.
73 posted on 01/09/2002 7:44:38 PM PST by Bogey78O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: WarHawk42
Bush one [sic] and Bob Dole had a whole crowd (Probably a lot of the same ones) of pollsters, analysts and advisors to.........and they lost.

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

74 posted on 01/09/2002 7:44:42 PM PST by codeword
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: codeword
But I think President Bush has a whole crowd of pollsters and analysts and advisors that are telling him otherwise, and he is listening.

Yeah, I believe that Bush has a whole crowd of pollsters and analysts and advisors telling him to listen to the polls and act accordingly. It is an effective strategy to abuse power by making executive orders, spend money on new Government programs, increase federal regulations, and most importantly, get reelected.

Just ask Bill Clinton.

75 posted on 01/09/2002 7:45:43 PM PST by Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: WarHawk42
If you are a strong believer in the Constitution you are considered a terrorist by the FBI.

This is probably true in this day of age.

76 posted on 01/09/2002 7:46:28 PM PST by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: WRhine
Who was the last President (in your lifetime) to achieve that to your satisfaction?
77 posted on 01/09/2002 7:46:33 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: MamaLucci
The smell of Democrat vote buying emanating from a "Republican" White House.

Home looks like a nice place to stay and watch the next presidential election results....at least I'll know what I'm getting.

78 posted on 01/09/2002 7:46:43 PM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
Yep - Hillary!
79 posted on 01/09/2002 7:47:38 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun
Thanks for the ping. Looks like lots of people unhappy that this President doesn't do 100% of what they want 100% of the time. Perhaps one day they will find that candidate and he will win 100% of the time, I'm sure.

I'm perfectly willing to cut my losses and accept the less harmful candidate in most instances. I've voted for pro-choice Republicans.

But, if America doesn't protect its borders, if America gives handouts to non-citizens for pure, craven, political calculation, what's the point?

There comes a time when one has to turn the channel, vote with one's wallet, or... withhold one's vote.

That time comes for me when the man I voted for, protested for, and took my daughter out of school one day to see, decides to lead a surrender when he's sitting at 80% in the polls.


80 posted on 01/09/2002 7:49:57 PM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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