US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7217

Groups that help low-income families get food assistance are alarmed by a recent drop in the number of immigrants seeking help. Some families are even canceling their food stamps and other government benefits, for fear that receiving them will affect their immigration status or lead to deportation. Many of the concerns appear to be unfounded, but have been fueled by the Trump administration's tough stance on immigration.

Officials at Manna Food Center in Montgomery County, Md., report that about 20 percent of the 561 families they've helped apply for food stamps, or SNAP benefits, in the past few months have asked that their cases be closed.

Maria Chavez, an outreach worker for Manna, says her immigrant clients are scared, especially if they're undocumented parents getting SNAP benefits for their eligible American children.

"They say, 'I want to close my food stamp.' And I say, 'Why you want to close it?' They say, 'Well, because I am afraid that something [will] happen to me or they deport me,' " says Chavez.

Jim Wengler, director of benefits access at Hunger Free New York City, says fewer immigrants have also been showing up recently at the 20 sites his group serves around the city. And he says some noncitizens — even those in the country legally — want all of their government benefits canceled, including Medicaid.

"Which is really frightening because these are families that are often working minimum-wage jobs, trying to raise children, trying to do the right thing, and with the help of these benefits are getting by. But without them, [they] will be in a really desperate situation," Wengler says.

Nonprofits around the country say they're seeing similar declines, although there are no hard numbers to back up the claims.

Advocates say the concerns seem to be twofold. Undocumented immigrants, who can't get benefits themselves, are worried about getting deported if they receive benefits for their children. And lawful permanent residents are worried that receiving government aid — which they generally have to wait five years to do — will jeopardize their chances of becoming citizens.

There's no evidence either of these things will happen, but rumors have been flying.

"There's so much misinformation that it's creating a lot of anxiety among all immigrants right now," says Matthew Lopas, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, which is trying to allay people's fears. "Nothing in the law has changed as of now, and there's certainly no danger at this point in using programs for which a person is eligible."

Still, President Trump has made clear that he'd like to restrict both illegal and legal immigration. In an address to Congress last month, he said that the nation's current immigration system is a drain on American taxpayers and that the country should be more selective about who it lets in.

"It's a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially. Yet, in America we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon," Trump told Congress.

Many economists disagree that's the case, but there are those within the administration who are concerned about immigrants' use of government aid. In January, a draft White House executive order was leaked that proposes new limits on the use of public benefits by those seeking citizenship.

The order hasn't been signed, and might never be signed. But Marco Liu, director of advocacy and outreach for the Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona, says the draft order and stepped up immigration enforcement make it difficult to convince noncitizens that they should continue to apply for the benefits they need.

"That's the sensitive and tricky part, because honestly, if I were in their shoes, I might be just as apprehensive," says Liu.

One additional note. We tried repeatedly to find immigrants willing to talk to us for the story, even without using their names. But we were unable to do so, which is highly unusual. Liu says people are so worried, they don't want to take any risks.

On March 29 2017 07:31 Nevuk wrote:
Personally, I'm amused by the people trying to crowdsource funding to buy congress's internet history and make them public once the law takes effect

WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders and the White House, under extreme pressure from conservative activists, have restarted negotiations on legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, with House leaders declaring that Democrats were celebrating the law’s survival prematurely.

Just days after President Trump said he was moving on to other issues, senior White House officials are now saying they have hope that they can still score the kind of big legislative victory that has so far eluded Mr. Trump. Vice President Mike Pence was dispatched to Capitol Hill on Tuesday for lunchtime talks.

“We’re not going to retrench into our corners or put up dividing lines,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan said after a meeting of House Republicans that was dominated by a discussion of how to restart the health negotiations. “There’s too much at stake to get bogged down in all of that.”

The House Republican whip, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, said of Democrats, “Their celebration is premature. We are closer to repealing Obamacare than we ever have been before.”

On March 29 2017 08:47 Doodsmack wrote:
They still need to find a compromise that works for both the Freedom Caucus and moderates, which isn't going to be easy.

On March 29 2017 07:29 Logo wrote:
A good day for TOR. A bad day for the rest of us.

On March 29 2017 14:48 Danglars wrote:

You can ask "Read My Lips" GHWB how it worked to campaign after having broken his signature campaign pledge. If we aren't rid of Obamacare by 2018, those majorities are lost or highly dented. But Ryan's singular focus on the Freedom Caucus opposition rather than the moderate opposition to the AHCA stupidity shows he's going to war with the conservative faction and ready to appease moderates in the future.

Oh, and all the freedom caucus members know they outperformed Trump in their districts. This is a core issue they are emboldened to fight on.

On March 29 2017 14:57 GreenHorizons wrote:


It would give me such great pleasure if Republicans fail to repeal Obamacare, no wall gets built, and the only thing that gets done this cycle being some sort of UHC being the center of 2018 elections. It would just so well demonstrate how wrong the Democratic party and it's loyalists were about everything in 16.

On March 29 2017 05:37 NewSunshine wrote:
I find it amusing that it's been called, since a while back, that the GOP has had no plan whatsoever for any kind of healthcare reform, and that they wouldn't have one now, and lo and behold, the best they can come up with is some ill-planned bill that's nothing short of dead on arrival. They haven't given it a moment's thought in years, they come up with something on the fly whilst twiddling their thumbs, and say it is 'regretful' that the current system is somehow better. They couldn't be arsed to actually devise something new.

It speaks to how fragmented even the 2 parties are now, and how called for more parties really are. I feel it's only a matter of time.

On March 29 2017 17:54 maybenexttime wrote:


While my perspective may be limited and biased, having never lived in the US, I think it's both. Although for the most part, it's just terribly inefficient. Americans are paying more for less when compared with the rest of the OECD countries.

https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Briefing-Note-UNITED-STATES-2014.pdf

On March 29 2017 18:06 opisska wrote:


But that was the case already before ACA, no? The "pay more for less" is a symptom of the commercial healthcare that ACA was aiming to tame in the first place ...

I honestly just fail to understand what are the specific effects of Obamacare on the system - sure, I can see the obvious good things in it (pre-existing conditions, government subsidies, universal mandate) and the clear effect of reducing the numbers of uninsured, but I also keep hearing people throwing vague accusation about "problems", mostly that they have to pay more than before. However what I would like know is where the money ends up? Is someone just making more profit, or is it redistributed towards lower income groups?

On March 29 2017 18:06 opisska wrote:


But that was the case already before ACA, no? The "pay more for less" is a symptom of the commercial healthcare that ACA was aiming to tame in the first place ...

I honestly just fail to understand what are the specific effects of Obamacare on the system - sure, I can see the obvious good things in it (pre-existing conditions, government subsidies, universal mandate) and the clear effect of reducing the numbers of uninsured, but I also keep hearing people throwing vague accusation about "problems", mostly that they have to pay more than before. However what I would like know is where the money ends up? Is someone just making more profit, or is it redistributed towards lower income groups?

On March 29 2017 19:19 maybenexttime wrote:


It's not that complicated. While there are two sides that want to go the opposite directions, only one of them wants to go in the right direction. I don't think there is a single country that made the libertarian approach to healthcare work. Unless your sole goal is to maximize the "liberty", and not make healthcare affordable and accessible to as many people as possible, the libertarian way is simply not feasible.