I am familiar with your arguments because I have read the same in The Economist for the last 12 years, and generally agree. I question how the welfare argument can be true when the large(sanctuary) cities in north america now claim bankruptcy from immigrant costs.
Well arranged data spread over many years do not explain, it seems, facts on the ground in this decade so far.
Thanks, Philip. As people who have applied for refugee status, they can't legally work for 180 days. So they go on welfare, which some city governments provide. However, refugees from Haiti, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ukraine, and Cuba are allowed to work right away. It's one of Biden's few good policies. So they do work right away and don't get welfare.
In Q&A, I pointed out that under the welfare reform of the mid-1990s, the federal government would not pay for welfare even for green card holders for the first few years. I told the audience that I thought that was a good provision.
Afterwards a young Canadian woman came up and told me that she was one of the people cut out of certain government programs due to that provision. I started to say why I thought it was justified. She said that I didn't need to argue that because SHE thought it was justified too.
A refreshing interaction with someone who was old school.
I am familiar with your arguments because I have read the same in The Economist for the last 12 years, and generally agree. I question how the welfare argument can be true when the large(sanctuary) cities in north america now claim bankruptcy from immigrant costs.
Well arranged data spread over many years do not explain, it seems, facts on the ground in this decade so far.
What say you?
Thanks, Philip. As people who have applied for refugee status, they can't legally work for 180 days. So they go on welfare, which some city governments provide. However, refugees from Haiti, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ukraine, and Cuba are allowed to work right away. It's one of Biden's few good policies. So they do work right away and don't get welfare.
Ask and ye shall receive. (Junio asked.)
In Q&A, I pointed out that under the welfare reform of the mid-1990s, the federal government would not pay for welfare even for green card holders for the first few years. I told the audience that I thought that was a good provision.
Afterwards a young Canadian woman came up and told me that she was one of the people cut out of certain government programs due to that provision. I started to say why I thought it was justified. She said that I didn't need to argue that because SHE thought it was justified too.
A refreshing interaction with someone who was old school.
Wonderful talk: I'm glad it was well received. I would be very interested to hear about that interesting conversation you mentioned if you don't mind!