Thread: 61% Say Enforcing Immigration Laws Would Reduce Poverty

61% Say Enforcing Immigration Laws Would Reduce Poverty

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Americans feel more strongly than ever that the lack of immigration law enforcement directly effects poverty in the country.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% of Adults say if immigration laws were enforced, there would be less poverty in America. Only 19% disagree with that assessment, while 20% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The number of adults who feel there would be less poverty is up 16 points from early July 2007 when only 45% of Americans felt that way. At that time, 32% disagreed.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 58% of adults not affiliated with either political party feel there would be less poverty if immigration laws were enforced, a view shared by just 48% of Democrats.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on April 2-3, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Men -- by a 67% to 56% margin -- are more likely than women to believe enforcing immigration laws would reduce poverty.

Adults under the age of 50 are more inclined to agree that there would be less poverty if immigration laws were enforced than their elders.

Despite the billions of dollars spent on government anti-poverty programs, a majority of Americans nationwide still believe there are more poor people in the country today than there were 10 years ago. In fact, a plurality (45%) of adults thinks the current government anti-poverty programs actually increase poverty in America.

A majority of Likely U.S. Voters feel that the policies and practices of the federal government encourage illegal immigration. Most voters continue to favor strong sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants and landlords who rent to them. Voters also feel strongly that police should check the immigration status of drivers during routine traffic stops.

Fifty percent (50%) of adults say it’s too easy to qualify for welfare in the United States. At the same time, 41% of Americans think it’s too easy to get food stamps in this country now.

Forty-eight percent (48%) also still believe it’s possible for anyone in the United States to work their way out of poverty, a finding that has shown little change since January 2010.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it's free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

Survey toplines and crosstabs are available to Platinum Members only.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... eral_busin ess/april_2011/61_say_enforcing_immigration_laws_would_cut_povert y

Anyone who has worked with their papers knows this to be true. Almost all of them claim to be living alone with their kids and no dad around(LIE!) in order to get benefits.

Originally Posted by Mayday

Anyone who has worked with their papers knows this to be true. Almost all of them claim to be living alone with their kids and no dad around(LIE!) in order to get benefits.

just ask the lady who about 6 weeks ago in LA was arrested on food stamp fraud claiming the husband didnt live with her and the kids, yet they found out other wise.

Putting a time limit,maybe a year,you could be on welfare would stop a lot of our present abuse. Of course those who use multiple ID would just switch names unless they are finger printed/checked.

Welfare was NEVER meant to be a way of life . The only exceptions should be disabled & seniors.

There is a 5 year limit on Welfare and other benefits.

Welfare
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welfare was first established as a federal program during the Great Depression. In 1935, Congress enacted Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), a relatively modest program focused primarily on widows, orphans, divorced or deserted mothers and their children. By 1939, ADC covered only about 700,000 people, and at least two-thirds of eligible children were not covered.

The program grew slowly but steadily over the next two decades, providing assistance to about 3 million people by 1960. Growth accelerated during the 1960s and 1970s, however, and enrollment in the renamed Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in 1994 reached a peak of 14.2 million recipients, a figure comprising 5.0 million families and 9.6 million children.

In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president promising to "end welfare as we know it," and in 1994 a Republican Congress was elected that was determined to change the existing system. On August 22, 1996, Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which ended the welfare entitlement and replaced it with a new block grant providing $16.5 billion per year to states to assist the needy.

The new program, called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), differed from its predecessor in a number of important ways, including:

Eliminating the Welfare Entitlement: Recipients are no longer guaranteed welfare benefits based on eligibility. The 1996 law also eliminated a child care guarantee for welfare recipients, but provided increased funding ($13.9 billion over six years) for child care through a newly created Child Care and Community Development Block Grant. The 1996 law did not affect Medicaid or food stamp eligibility, though critics contend that links between these programs have resulted in numerous recipients being denied Medicaid and food stamp assistance.

Establishing Work Requirements: TANF requires recipients to be working within two years of receiving benefits. This general mandate is reinforced by rules requiring states to reach fixed and rising work participation thresholds. By 2002, 50 percent of families receiving assistance in every state must be engaged in work-related activities.

Establishing a Five Year Lifetime Limit on Assistance: To address long-term welfare dependency, TANF placed a five year lifetime limit on assistance, but allowed states to exempt up to 20 percent of such cases for hardship reasons. States are allowed to reduce this lifetime limit below 5 years, and almost half of the states have done so.

Eligibility for TANF assistance is limited to pregnant women and families with children. Within these constraints, however, TANF allows states broad discretion in how they spend their federal block grant money.

Since TANF was enacted, the number of people on welfare has declined dramatically. By 1999, there were only 7.2 million recipients, including 2.6 million families and 5.1 million children, roughly half the caseload of the 1994 peak. Analysts believe several factors have contributed to this decline, including an improved economy, tougher work requirements, and diversion strategies that have moved applicants directly to work programs. Not only have recipients left the program in higher numbers, but fewer have joined to replace them.

Supporters of the 1996 changes point to declining caseloads as evidence of the new law's success. Opponents argue that reducing poverty is more important than reducing welfare dependence, and that poverty has not dropped nearly as much as welfare enrollment, implying that people in need are being turned away. - 6/1/01

www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/welfare.shtml

Originally Posted by jamesw62

Originally Posted by Mayday

Anyone who has worked with their papers knows this to be true. Almost all of them claim to be living alone with their kids and no dad around(LIE!) in order to get benefits.

just ask the lady who about 6 weeks ago in LA was arrested on food stamp fraud claiming the husband didnt live with her and the kids, yet they found out other wise.

They must have translators at all Social Services Departments.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

61% Say Enforcing Immigration Laws Would Reduce Poverty

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Americans feel more strongly than ever that the lack of immigration law enforcement directly effects poverty in the country.

This is encouraging. I wonder if Americans now know that illegals are undercutting them for jobs. I hope so. Americans can't work themselves out of poverty, if they can't get jobs.

These survey results really ought to be sent to Congress. If nothing else, it would show Repubs that there's no need to pander to race-baiting Reconquistas.

Wish the survey had included a question specifically asking if enforcement would make it easier for Americans to get jobs.
************************************************** **************************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% of Adults say if immigration laws were enforced, there would be less poverty in America. Only 19% disagree with that assessment, while 20% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Any person should agree if a Country has as many illegal immigrants as America does unlawfully employing jobs, and employers committing acts of fraud, the Country will become unstable, and many citizens will suffer, due to immigration laws not being enforced.

Related:
Majority of Americans now see illegal aliens as detrimental to the economy
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-234310.html

Originally Posted by jamesw62

Originally Posted by Mayday

Anyone who has worked with their papers knows this to be true. Almost all of them claim to be living alone with their kids and no dad around(LIE!) in order to get benefits.

just ask the lady who about 6 weeks ago in LA was arrested on food stamp fraud claiming the husband didnt live with her and the kids, yet they found out other wise.

I thought that happened here in North Carolina. these hard working people are hard working alright. they are working hard at taking from the citizens of this country as well as hard working at lying just to get benefits that are not meant for them.