Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So basically you want to define naturalized citizens as some form of second-class citizens who pay into the system but can never draw from it if they have the need?
I'd sure hate to pay unemployment insurance for 20 years and then not be able to draw unemployment benefits in the case I got laid off.
I do think that there should be something in place that disallows immigrants or anyone they sponsor to receive benefits from tax supported social programs until they are self supporting and productive for at least a certain amount of time. For that matter, we should not give someone legal status if they can't be self supporting. Someone here illegally should not receive anything, nor should any family members, including so-called anchor babies. But legal immigrants who become citizens and work here should be able to tap into anything than any other citizen can, because they ARE citizens.
Excuse me? My husband is foreign-born, and became a US citizen after 15 years of living here. He co-owns a successful company that employs many Americans. It's disgusting that you think he would not be "worthy" of benefits if he became disabled or for Medicare.
Additionally I would get rid of the law that someone applying for U.S. citizenship has to renounce their former country's citizenship. We are one of the few countries that require this and it is xenophobic and antiquated (a throwback to our fear of British citizens coming here and subverting our new nation, I imagine).
This law is just a technicality, since the US can't control what the immigrant's home country wants to do with the citizenship. For example, my husband is able to keep his other citizenship and passport, even though he renounced it when he became a citizen. His birth country honors dual citizenship, so that's all that really matters. Many people here do the same. However, if his home country required him to give up his citizenship, then he'd only have one.
The law is old, I have paperwork from my grandparents from the 1800's about their denouncing the King of Sweden, and no longer being Sweden subjects. They came separate, met once they got here in the 1890's.
Excuse me? My husband is foreign-born, and became a US citizen after 15 years of living here. He co-owns a successful company that employs many Americans. It's disgusting that you think he would not be "worthy" of benefits if he became disabled or for Medicare.
Being a legal citizen he is entitled to those benefits and services.
The illegal trespassers are not here legally.
They cost more than they put back.
Being a legal citizen he is entitled to those benefits and services.
The illegal trespassers are not here legally.
They cost more than they put back.
Again, the issue here is that the OP said those who weren't born in the US-- not just those who are here illegally-- should be unable to access social safety net programs.
Again, the issue here is that the OP said those who weren't born in the US-- not just those who are here illegally-- should be unable to access social safety net programs.
That's the issue here.
Ya, that is what is said, but if you put it into context of the message, and use the message as a whole, instead of pulling a bite, the post does describe their plight is with illegal trespassers, and not those here legally, that respect the right they got to be here.
Ya, that is what is said, but if you put it into context of the message, and use the message as a whole, instead of pulling a bite, the post does describe their plight is with illegal trespassers, and not those here legally, that respect the right they got to be here.
So the question is about legal or illegal immigration. Which is a fine discussion to have, and one that's been hashed and rehashed in the immigration sub-forum. But when the OP starts slinging around the idea that no one who immigrates to the US should be eligible for any social programs? Simply based on country-of-birth? Regardless of how long they've lived in the US or for what reason they came here? That's asinine, and that's what pretty much everyone who has disagreed with the OP has disagreed with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
