Yes
No
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Americans on Welfare more than a year should lose their citizenship, right?
What is your opinion?
Add Opinion
5.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Sure, if it’s defined as also including losers like you who live off of family members.
Seriously, what’s with your pathological obsession with white Americans who are on welfare (you don’t have a problem with any non-white American on welfare)?It should also be mentioned that your proposal is ripe for all sorts of abuses by employers and government bureaucrats. And what happens when there is structural economic change? And would all bills continue to follow these people stripped of their citizenship, especially the vast majority who would now be stateless?
Since stripping someone of their citizenship is such a joke to you, you should educate yourself about the abuses the Nazis propagated when they stripped German citizens they didn’t like of their German citizenship and made them stateless after seizing their property.
522 Reply- 3 mo
I don't think living off family members is the same thing. All children do that. If you're taking care of your deadbeat brother, that's your choice to do so (some might say responsibility but that's another can of worms). I think people get tired of their tax dollars going to people they do NOT know, and that, at least to the best of my understanding, is the chief complaint about welfare and those who stay on it.
- 3 mo
@BoopBoopBeep: That’s a distinction without a difference (and we obviously aren’t talking about dependent children). And the reasons people are on welfare are varied, especially if you start counting people on disability or who have mental illnesses.
I think most people would agree that an adult who had to be supported by a family member (as Odd has admitted he did) shouldn’t be getting haughty about anyone having been on welfare, and it sure becomes a factor when that person who needed support from a family member as an adult calls fir adults on welfare to be stripped of their citizenship.
But while we’re on the subject of tax dollars, there are a whole lot less deserving parasites that suck up a lot more of them than welfare recipients do. But when CEOs, politicians and defense contractors do it, it’s all good, right? - 3 mo
@Avicenna Are those the same thing? I'm talking here regarding your second paragraph. Let's look at the two situations.
In the first, someone is ASKING for help from THEIR family. Even if it's 24/7/365 care... whatever level, it is THEIR family who can also say Golf Foxtrot Yankee and doesn't cost them a dime. Nor others (yes yes, second order effects, stress on the healthcare system afterwards yadda yadda, don't disagree, just keeping this simple for academic purposes).
Second situation. Each family is required by law to give a dollar to support rando people they don't know.
We can debate which is better/more just/cheaper/right, but I think it's disingenuous to say they are the same thing and that they will be received similarly amongst the general population, for better or worse. I was around when Pres Clinton signed the sweeping welfare reform that he'd made front and center of his campaign. It was pretty well received by both sides of the aisle.
I'm not sure why that last paragraph was (IF it was) directed at me. I oppose federal bailouts of corporate entities, "Too Big to Fail", and all similar policies unless the tax dollars used to bail them out result in actual shares of that company being deposited into every tax payers Roth IRA account. Must be ROTH. I also think politicians are one step above child molesters on the social hierarchy and vehemently support term limits. Defense contractors are businesses. They take advantage of the opportunities presented to them to increase profit for the shareholders. I don't fault them I fault a system that allows them to cheat, when they cheat.
I'm also not sure that the issue many people have with it is "Which results in more money... blah blah blah" corporations or welfare. I think, like the death penalty, many people have their stance rooted in their moral convictions and fiscal considerations aren't even in play. - 3 mo
@BoopBoopBeep: There is still a cost to the economy if you’re an able-bodied adult whose family is supporting you rather than you working an supporting yourself (the analog to being in welfare). You could be producing and paying taxes, and probably consuming more, plus you’re reducing your family’s savings rate. As for “giving money to people we don’t know”, we do that all the time with public goods and other government spending, and we do it without complaint for the most part. Think of schools, for example.
And let’s not forget that Odd hasn’t clarified if he’d strip the disabled, mentally ill and retired Social Security recipients of their citizenship.
If you’re going to talk about morality, what you should be concerned about is the human rights and constitutional violations inherent in the proposal to strip individual welfare recipients if their citizenship when we’re agreed on who the egregious offenders are. - 3 mo
Haha I don't know where you live, but there's nothing but complaints about funding for schools here. We've got the dumbest kids in the free world.
Personally, I don't talk about morality since we can't agree on what is morally right any more than we can agree which flavor ice cream is correct. I also don't want a moral government any more than I want a moral hammer, I want a minimalist one, but that's a much larger barrel of beans there.
I work in the field of Human Rights. That doesn't have any universal meaning. In some places not providing fast internet is considered a violation of basic human rights. Some stuff is egregious enough that we're likely to agree on it being a violation of a human right, like the lady who was forced to douche with gasoline after her family raped her "for being a whore" because she liked a guy of the wrong sect. Different league than "the IDP camp doesn't have broadband".
But yeah... I wasn't talking about morality, i was merely saying "this is my understanding of the position that opposed xyz." - 3 mo
@BoopBoopBeep: Well, yeah, but stripping a welfare recipient of their citizenship is clearly a human rights violation for anyone to the left of Ghenghus Khan.
But the point remains that a welfare recipient, even a lazy one (aren’t there plenty of lazy people who pretty much do nothing at work?), is more deserving than those benefiting from corporate bailouts, wasteful defense spending, corporate welfare, no-bid contracts, nepotism, etc. and certainly a disabled person or someone who has been a victim of structural economic change is. - 3 mo
@Avicenna Are we talking about stripping them of U. S. citizenship and making them default back to their former citizenship, or leaving a person stateless (no citizenship anywhere). I only agree that perhaps the latter is as you put it "a human rights violation for anyone to the left of Ghenghus Khan." The former is something we actually do and have for some time. Family members (in the U. S.) applying for another relative to come over have to fill out a... fml... can't remember the form number... a "Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A" of the INA saying that for the next 40 quarters (ten years) they are responsible financially for the other person coming over. If they fail to do so the person is subject to removal.
According to USCIS:
We consider an applicant’s current and/or past receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance. Public cash assistance for income maintenance includes only the following:
Supplemental Security Income (SSI);
Cash assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program; and
State and local cash assistance programs that provide benefits for income maintenance (often called ‘‘General Assistance’’ programs).
We also consider an applicant’s institutionalization for long-term care at government expense, such as in a nursing home or mental health institution.
However, relatively few applicants will be both subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility and eligible for these public benefits prior to adjustment of status. (For more details, see below under “Most Noncitizens Are Not Eligible for Public Benefits.”)
Then it goes on to list a huge amount of "welfare programs" like SNAP and WIC that it does NOT consider.
- 3 mo
Cont for length:
How do we determine that this person is worthy and this company, which pays for more families to eat is not worthy? Honest question. Why bail out any of them? We obviously can't bail out everyone always forever, so where DO we draw the line? Who gets to draw it? How do we shift it left or right? - 3 mo
@Avicenna I think the work requirement was a wonderful addition. I also remember how bad things were before it existed. I also know that there are many ways to find loopholes in the current structure (there's a recently retired social worker in my family) and the work requirement isn't as set in stone as we might like.
Haha I like doing yard work ;) - 3 mo
@BoopBoopBeep: Let’s use a little common sense here. Odd is known for his cheerleading for the illegal invaders and he also supports “legal” mass migration. It’s also the case that a significant number of naturalized citizens were once in the US illegally prior to getting green cards Given that, it’s obvious that he does not want to strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship for becoming welfare recipients, and I am not aware of there being any significant number of people who would support such a policy. I would also consider it a human rights violation.
Ofd Id well known for his animus toward fellow white Americans, calling them lazy and racist. Clearly, they are the primary target (perhaps the only one) of his desire to strip many US citizens of their citizenship). The vast majority of them (perhaps almost all) would become stateless.
Perhaps Odd will be willing to clarify whether he wants to de-nationalize only white US citizens, or if it would like to do it to members of all races he deems lazy.
I’ll state again that there are plenty of lazy people who are employed, so being on welfare isn’t even an accurate measure of laziness. - 3 mo
Odd, you have previously stated that during some parts of your marriage your wife supported you. The only reason why this is an issue is because you’ve haughtily gone after people on welfare while championing the very-expensive illegals. That you are a white man who needed financial support from a woman of color means you have been hoisted up on your own leftist petard. What would you have done if your sugar mama wasn’t there to support you? Would you have been on welfare?
The larger point is that the totalitarian sword you wield against fellow white Americans could easily be used against you by racist leftists. Being their useful idiot isn’t in your best interest. - 3 mo
@Avicenna
Common sense does not include knowing of "what odd is known for"... sorry. I didn't get backbriefed on that. Regardless of everything you mentioned in paragraph one, SOMEBODY supports the policy of stripping naturalized citizens of their citizenship for being on welfare, because that's what the law says to do, with the exception of the types of welfare I mentioned earlier. That's the whole point of the public charge exclusion.
Second paragraph is flawed because it to presupposed I know what Odd is known for, when to the best of my knowledge I've never heard from him before, but okay. We're also conflating naturalized citizens with natural born citizens. If we strip the naturalized citizens of their citizenship, in accordance with current U. S. law, how would "the vast majority of them... become stateless?"
Your last sentence doesn't even make sense. There are plenty of cats who are mammals (all of them), so being a mammal isn't even an accurate measure of being a cat. Just because there are lazy people who are NOT on welfare does not logically mean that those on welfare are not lazy. I'm not saying they ARE lazy, I'm just saying that sentence is a poor logical construct. - 3 mo
@BoopBoopBeep:, That doesn’t tell us how long the public charge exclusion has been on the books, anything about the debate pot legislative intent at that time or what current opinion is it was at that time.
As for your strawmen and lack of common sense, I’ll repeat the obvious: being on welfare can have many causes, and because someone is on it at a given time, that does not necessarily mean they are lazy. Furthermore, I’m sure you’ve encountered some people who have full-time jobs but are lazy on the job and often outside the job, which means that someone is not automatically not lazy merely because they’re employed. . - 3 mo
I don’t see any reason to treat naturalized citizens differently than those who were born US citizens, although it’s true that some are not permitted by their original countries to have dual citizenship. For some bizarre reason, you seem to have decided to pretend you couldn’t tell I was referring to white Americans and American citizens in general who were born US citizens and have no other citizenship, although it was in a separate paragraph than the one talking about naturalized US citizens. If your arrogance prevents you from reading properly, it’s your problem.
- 3 mo
It was last updated under Biden if that helps any.
Strawman against whom? I agree that being on welfare doesn't mean you're lazy, I just pointed out that it's not logically sound to use the people who ARE lazy but NOT on welfare as some sort of "proof" for anything that you seem to be attempting to use it for.
"Just because there are lazy people who are NOT on welfare does not logically mean that those on welfare are not lazy." That would only be a strawman if I finish it with something indicating that I think they ARE lazy. Which I did not. - 3 mo
There are legal reasons to treat them differently. One can be stripped of citizenship. The other cannot. That's what the law says bro, don't complain about my reading comprehension. Best I can see you're the only person who ever brought up race.
- 3 mo
@BoopBoopBeep: No, when was the law saying citizenship could be stripped from naturalized citizens passed? What was the legislative debate? Have the courts ever interpreted it? How many naturalized citizens have been stripped of their citizenship because they collected some welfare benefits, and when did this occur? There are plenty of laws still on the books that never get enforced, and this is one I very much doubt would go unchallenged should Odd’s policy suggestion be enforced.
If you are not familiar with Odd’s posting, even after I explained it to you, maybe you shouldn’t poke your nose into the discussion without first informing yourself. Odd clearly is not saying this should only apply to naturalized US citizens.
I have a hard time believing someone who claims to work in the human rights arena would think that it’s OK to strip naturalized citizens of their US citizenship merely for collecting some forms of welfare. But I think most people would agree that it would be a human rights violation, although I can’t see the US government enforcing it.
So there is no misunderstanding, do you believe the US government should strip naturalized US citizens of their US citizenship if they get on a form of welfare the US code says could result in the loss of citizenship (that’s your interpretation)? Do you believe that would be a human rights violation if it actually occurred?
Since you’ve decided to be deliberately obtuse and engage in sophistry and misrepresentation: I’ll state it again:
A person is not necessarily lazy because they are on welfare at the moment (especially if they have worked a number of years). Laziness is not determined by whether someone is employed or on welfare; for example, some people are employed yet are very lazy when it comes to doing their jobs and are not productive. Determining whether someone is lazy is more complex than looking at their current employment status.
- New 3 mo
@Avicenna My responses by paragraph number because i'm starting to just get bored.
P1: You can google your whole first paragraph of questions. That information is publicly available.
P2: Odd favors white people. Ok. Gotcha. I'm not interested in researching some rando on the internet's opinion. I'll take your word for it. Largely because I don't really care what his opinion is. No offense Odd.
P3 Naturalized citizenship is a privilege like any other. It can be lost. We may not agree on how easy it should be to lose it, but it's disingenuous to act like the mere act of stripping citizenship is unheard of or some great atrocity. Pretty much every country in the world does it, outside of those who have no control of their borders. Anything less is just Ivory Tower.
- New 3 mo
(cont for being "too long")
P4 I believe any infraction higher than a minor traffic ticket with a fine over $300; any misdemeanor conviction, plea bargin or Alford plea; obviously any felony; any period of unemployment exceeding 90 days; or public nuisance designations not resulting in criminal charges should be automatic denatz and order of removal. I feel that way BECAUSE i'm in human rights. We have finite space and resources (and per country maximums). Every s-bag we kick out is space for a REAL victim to come over and be a productive American. We have enough lazy f-ckstains here naturally we don't need to import more. When the lady who had to douche with gasoline after her family raped her doesn't get to come because some asshat wants to just suck up tax dollars, yeah, yeah I'm uncomfortable with that BECAUSE of my work in human rights. People get denatz out of every country in the world. You can hate it all you want. It's accepted practice. You don't have a human right to be in the U. S., so no, there's no human rights violation there. Incidentally, it doesn't matter what i think or feel about it because a bag of feelings isn't worth f-ckall in the real world, the law is the law, and U. S. law says there is no human rights violation occurring there.
P5: repeat it again... changes nothing. I agree with you. There are lazy people in the U. S. who DO work. What are you trying to convince me of? Find a way to kick them out I'll favor that too.
Most Helpful Opinions
6.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. The right-wing would like to criminalize being poor.
32 Reply
No, wrong. Are you suggesting that even those born in their country should lose it? Does "welfare" include those on an old age pension? And if they did lose it, what then? Of which country would they become a citizen, or would they be stateless? You clearly haven't thought this through properly.
19 Reply- 3 mo
Stop lying, Odd. You wouldn’t suggest stripping people on welfare (which you now define as those unemployed) if that wasn’t what you wanted to do. Take a look at the employment rate in the US- you’re calling for 40% of adults, including the homeless, mentally ill and disabled to be made stateless because you deem them lazy.
And please don’t pretend all the illegals are hardworking people who benefit the economy. That’s obviously not close to accurate. - 3 mo
Oh really. How was it "obviously" about unemployment and, even if that was the case, how could you EVER justify taking away the citizenship of someone who was unemployed? How do you justify that? Why are you so rotten and callous?
Right now I'm unemployed. Your question is vile and utterly offensive, stupid and comical. You obviously hate people who are out of work, and you don't give a damn about the reason (s) why. You're a disgraceful human being.
What Girls & Guys Said
1
Opinion
10Opinion
3.7K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. No, they shouldn’t be who is the rise to each citizens of the United States. They should lose the welfare because we can’t afford it because both sides keep blowing out the spending, but they shouldn’t be using the rights to be citizens that’s nuts
10 Reply- 896 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Xper 7 Age: 42 , mho 31%4 moNo just end the welfare system, Did you know in 19th century America I was actually illegal to be unemployed in many states?
Of course that was before the Goverment effectively outlawed most lower end jobs,09 Reply- 3 mo
You also couldn't immigrate without being able to demonstrate financial independence sufficiently high enough to remain OFF the public charge. Inability to do so is still a codified disqualifier in immigration law, it's just never enforced. It may be like those "you can't marry a horse in texas on Wednesday" laws, but it's very much there.
Sources:
www.ilcm.org/.../
www.uscis.gov/.../public-charge-resources - 3 mo
@BoopBoopBeep Immigration is not part of the question by the time citizenship becomes an issue.
A related question of immigration between these united States which is literally the moving from one state to anther. This too may be called immigration not merely migration because technically every American is first a Citizen of their respective State and only from that citizenship comes their Federal Citizenship as defined by the 14th amendment.
This of course is very big issue for every state of significant economic and political consequences.
States demonstrate their interest in trying to attractive economically valuable immigration in the form of businesses, and be outwardly politically to dissuade politically disagreeable immigration. American States are in the market of persuasion between they have ceded the power of interstate force when it comes to citizens of other united States. - 3 mo
@monorprise 95% true, but as a nitpick, one's citizenship can always be revoked if their prior actions are deemed to be material misrepresentation in an Immigration Court, returning them to the last status held prior to the bad act. Thus if they made the material misrepresentation when they applied for citizenship they would go back to having a green card, if they made it in their visa application then they would lose citizenship, any still applicable visa and would face an order of removal from the country.
- 3 mo
@BoopBoopBeep Even thou this may be true among naturalized citizens It seems hardly related to the concept of welfare. A problem of the goverment taking too much money from the working to give to the too idle is first and formost a goverment problem not the problem of the one who takes the money.
After all we must expect anyone who is offered money would take it and to assume some kind of noble refusal might as well assume laws will be followed without enforcement. - 3 mo
@monorprise Yep... nope... I got no response. I actually agree with all of that... nothing really for me to say.
- 3 mo
- 3 mo
@Avicenna If you agree to work for someone for a period of time or pro-bono you have that right.
Like it or not many jobs require employees willing to stick it out for a minimum period of time either because they need a certainty level of experience to be useful as is the case for most jobs.
or the job itself requires uninterrupted professional management such as security guard or a cortical system monitor. Without which something disastrous might happen, as such the employer can't afford to let you go before they have someone else who can do the job.
I'm sorry but that is the nature of the world, if you don't want to work that kind of job then Don't.
I myself don't like mortgages to this day because they likewise can put you in a similarly disadvantageous position of forgetting everything you have invested in a property.
In this case politicians in the interest of making them more affordable have choose to allow such a contract. For people who simply can't pay a higher interest rate and can't be trusted to not walk away with a lesser penalty. In a free country we should have a wider rage of options and trade offs to make. But thanks to the Federal reserve and the goverment we don't.
9.6K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. What next? Killing people who can't get their mental health together after a year?
Taking from people with problems doesn't help. Would you rather these people be working at your job instead?
00 ReplyWhy? Being as much of a leech on the American government as you can is based and redpilled. This country is gay.
02 Reply- 3 mo
Collect as much money as you can from the government and pay as little as possible in taxes. Use that money to purchase assets to preserve wealth. The idea of "bootstrapping" your way to success is for the plebs. If people are worried about their tax money going to support these loser stoners in the OP video, fret not! The government can magically conjure all the money it wants out of thin air. Your tax dollars are used to keep you on the hamster wheel, as is usury, and inflation.
1.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. You out of your mind? Think you should be the one to lose citizenship!
51 Reply- 4 mo
Its not an unreasonable suggestion from someone who believes the goverment exist to provide welfare.
Its just crazy for everyone who knows the real problem is the goverment enabling this abuses.
In a functional charity the person giving help actually cares about the person being helped enough to make sure they are doing what they need to do to be independent.
The Goverment as an institution is too distant from the people paying the bills and frankly getting the money to care. So they buy lies like this.
10.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. no but they need to get off welfare in two years. The goverment can offer training for them if they want but after two years it is time to get a job like the the rest of us.
00 Reply1.4K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Nah, the system itself is good, they should just find a way to stop the abuse.
On the other hand, if the gouverment did this, at least it would include, and piss off, leftists who think captitalism and not everyone should need to work :P
00 Reply- 1.1K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Guru Age: 283 mo
No one should be involuntarily stripped of citizenship.
00 Reply - 2.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Guru Age: 443 mo
Wouldn't that just grant them more free hookups?
00 Reply - 344 opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Yoda Age: 33 , mho 61%4 moNo, wtf are you, a Nazi? Jesus.
21 Reply 3.5K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic. Eww, no lol.
17 Reply- 3 mo
It's alright I don't mind some spice.
Illegals are not our problem. They are not citizens and should be promptly deported. Our country is not an international charity and we need a lot more money invested in our own infrastructure. A lot of places don't even have clean drinking water in the USA, shameful! And we have a lot of homeless people who are mentally ill.
America is taxed heavily from within and must sort itself out before trying to extend excess wealth to foreigners not crucial for foreign relations.
Citizenship should be faster and less expensive though.
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Home > Society & Politics > Polls > Americans on Welfare more than a year should lose their citizenship, right?
Add your reply For "{0}"
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
Most Helpful Opinions