Is there or isn’t there a crisis on the border?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, the vast majority of government services are unavailable to undocumented people. You wouldn’t want to extend services to support our families because maybe some tiny % of those services would be abused?

So rather than risk having a tiny % of abuse you prefer to have nothing - zero benefits for any citizens. Sounds like spite to me.

re: refugees and asylees - But how are we coding those entering if they're escaping brutal conditions?

Refugees and asylees are eligible for all welfare benefits for the first seven years they reside in the U.S., after which their eligibility is greatly reduced.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/welfare-benefits-for-non-citizens/
Welfare Benefits for Non-Citizens

written in 2002 - still the case?
If so, 7 years is still a long time.


This is new to me, too.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/programs/cma/about

The Cash and Medical Assistance (CMA) Program is part of the Division of Refugee Assistance. CMA reimburses states for 100 percent of services provided to refugees and other eligible persons, as well as associated administrative costs. Programs eligible for reimbursement include:

Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA)
Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA)
Unaccompanied Refugee Minors

https://refugeehealthta.org/access-to-care/eligibility-for-benefits-and-services/
similar info

SEVEN YEARS? Good grief. I had no idea they were eligible for federal benefits. And I bet millions of other people had no idea either, so thank you for posting, PP.

+1

[Anonymous]

Trump has already left some treaties, why can’t he back out of international refugee ones? That would let the US refuse to take any “asylum seekers”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, the vast majority of government services are unavailable to undocumented people. You wouldn’t want to extend services to support our families because maybe some tiny % of those services would be abused?

So rather than risk having a tiny % of abuse you prefer to have nothing - zero benefits for any citizens. Sounds like spite to me.

re: refugees and asylees - But how are we coding those entering if they're escaping brutal conditions?

Refugees and asylees are eligible for all welfare benefits for the first seven years they reside in the U.S., after which their eligibility is greatly reduced.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/welfare-benefits-for-non-citizens/
Welfare Benefits for Non-Citizens

written in 2002 - still the case?
If so, 7 years is still a long time.


This is new to me, too.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/programs/cma/about

The Cash and Medical Assistance (CMA) Program is part of the Division of Refugee Assistance. CMA reimburses states for 100 percent of services provided to refugees and other eligible persons, as well as associated administrative costs. Programs eligible for reimbursement include:

Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA)
Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA)
Unaccompanied Refugee Minors

https://refugeehealthta.org/access-to-care/eligibility-for-benefits-and-services/
similar info

SEVEN YEARS? Good grief. I had no idea they were eligible for federal benefits. And I bet millions of other people had no idea either, so thank you for posting, PP.

I think any refugee we bring in should get tons of support. Otherwise, we will face enclaves and integration challenges like Europe. I dont think that all of these caravans are full of genuine refugees. The state is not actively persecuting people in Central America. If we are to classify them as refugees, and we are OK with them having 2 economies -one of people who stay behind, one of remittances and dollars - then we need to set up a very strict guest worker program, with health and criminal checks, no family accompaniment, and no birthright citizenship. Half the Philippines works abroad. They also leave their families at home and travel home once a year. That's being a "guest worker". These central Americans want to immigrate. In that case they should go through a full UN administered refugee process, live in camps in Mexico for years, and be sent all over the world. That's the way it has worked for generations of refugees. Whoch will it be? The current status quo is simply open borders

Europe gives ''refugees'' and refugees tons of support. They don't want to integrate. They despise European culture.

THIS, exactly. The recent immigrants to Europe don’t WANT to assimilate. They’ve been given all the aid in the world, but they despise the very people helping them. It boggles the mind that Europe has let itself become a doormat for people who hate them and their culture.

Truth.

[Anonymous]

Japan will be fine. As automation, robotics, ai, and other technology provide labor substitution, japan - with it's high iq, high trust society will mitigate much of the issues of a shrinking population while maintaining civilizational cohesiveness.

America will become brazil 2.0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump has already left some treaties, why can’t he back out of international refugee ones? That would let the US refuse to take any “asylum seekers”.

+1

[Anonymous]

Sure, let's just turn the US into Kansas and leave everyone to fend for themselves, even Kansans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump has already left some treaties, why can’t he back out of international refugee ones? That would let the US refuse to take any “asylum seekers”.

+1

I guess I'm wondering where the help from the international community is if we are signatories to an international treaty? This is obviously overwhelming our resources

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump has already left some treaties, why can’t he back out of international refugee ones? That would let the US refuse to take any “asylum seekers”.

+1

I guess I'm wondering where the help from the international community is if we are signatories to an international treaty? This is obviously overwhelming our resources

I doubt anyone else wants to rush in to throw away hundreds of thousands of dollars into the black hole. Our aid has done nothing. time to let them deal with it on their own

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump has already left some treaties, why can’t he back out of international refugee ones? That would let the US refuse to take any “asylum seekers”.

+1

I guess I'm wondering where the help from the international community is if we are signatories to an international treaty? This is obviously overwhelming our resources

I doubt anyone else wants to rush in to throw away hundreds of thousands of dollars into the black hole. Our aid has done nothing. time to let them deal with it on their own

Based on what facts? Or are you just parroting some RWNJ?

[Anonymous]

Trump told CBP head McAleenan if he were sent to jail as a result, the president would pardon him, 2 Sr admin officials tell me.

- Jake Tapper


So our President is encouraging administration officials to break the law. That is another impeachable offense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump has already left some treaties, why can’t he back out of international refugee ones? That would let the US refuse to take any “asylum seekers”.

+1

I guess I'm wondering where the help from the international community is if we are signatories to an international treaty? This is obviously overwhelming our resources

We are the United States of America. We don't need anyone else's help to deal with this. We we need is a compentent leader, which is lacking at the moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump has already left some treaties, why can’t he back out of international refugee ones? That would let the US refuse to take any “asylum seekers”.

+1

I guess I'm wondering where the help from the international community is if we are signatories to an international treaty? This is obviously overwhelming our resources

We are the United States of America. We don't need anyone else's help to deal with this. We we need is a compentent leader, which is lacking at the moment.

Why not step up and offer at least one bed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump has already left some treaties, why can’t he back out of international refugee ones? That would let the US refuse to take any “asylum seekers”.

+1

I guess I'm wondering where the help from the international community is if we are signatories to an international treaty? This is obviously overwhelming our resources

We are the United States of America. We don't need anyone else's help to deal with this. We we need is a compentent leader, which is lacking at the moment.

Why not step up and offer at least one bed?

Oooh - Crickets! Typical Lying Liberals!!!

[Anonymous]

Since canada has a lower population density and not enough latinos in its population mix, why not collect all asylum seekers and undocumented and present them at the northern border.

It's like osmosis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump has already left some treaties, why can’t he back out of international refugee ones? That would let the US refuse to take any “asylum seekers”.

+1

I guess I'm wondering where the help from the international community is if we are signatories to an international treaty? This is obviously overwhelming our resources

We are the United States of America. We don't need anyone else's help to deal with this. We we need is a compentent leader, which is lacking at the moment.

We need competent leadership in congress. Last I checked those are the people making laws.