Javnost je jako podieljena u vezi ovog pitanja i drago mi je sto ima onih koji misle da izuzimanje legalnih imigranata od prava na public benefits niej u redu. Ja razumijem da ti i ostali ne zelite davati para da neko ko sjedi doma zivi na vas racun, medutim i ti ljudi (ne govorim sad o sebi, niti sam pokrenula ovo pitanje radi svojih potreba, jer mi to ne treba - vec radih drugih kojima ce mozda trebati jer je takva situacija - tesko da ce i muz i zena dobiti posao) placaju porez kao i citizens, dijele iste obaveze kao drzavljani, sluze u vojsci kao gradani. Kolko god da im je mala placa legalni imigranti placaju porez i time mislim da time zasluzuju da ih se tretira ravnopravno sa drugim gradanima. Covjek koji tek dode ne moze se odma najbolje snaci i posao koji dobije ce vjerojatno biti minimalac. Zasto da mu se ne pomogne da ne padne jos nize, pa isplati se i drzavi da su ljudi zdravstveno osigurani, da im djeca budu cjepljena, pa ako treba da im se plati i grijanje da se ne razbole, sve kako bi mogli raditi i doprinositi drzavi.
Evo razloga za i protiv davanja istih prava na javne beneficije za imigrante. Oni koji smatraju da bi legalni imigranti trebali imati prava na javne beneficije kazu:
- The obligation of legal immigrants to pay the same taxes owed by citizens ought to make them eligible for the same benefits available to citizens
- Since legal immigrants together contribute far more to the government than a low-income subset of them would receive in subsidies, there’s no financial justification for excluding them from public support.
- The evidence is weak that providing assistance acts as a “magnet” for poor immigrants.
- Allowing participation is part of a broader American philosophy toward immigrants who come to this country seeking a better life. The relatively equal access enjoyed prior to 1996 “was based on the principle that non-citizens come to America to participate in the full range of American social, economic, and political life and that, with modest exceptions, they should be treated like other Americans.”5
Oni koji se protive vladinoj pomoci za legalne imigrante kazu:
- The United States has a long history of restricting public assistance and discouraging immigrants who would be public charges from coming here.
- The immigration policy of the United States should be that aliens within the nation's borders ought not to depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own resources and those of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations
- Legal immigrants had been applying for and receiving public benefits at increasing rates before 1996, raising concerns that those benefits were encouraging a disproportionate share of low-income individuals to come to the United States.
- Illegal immigration could be blamed in part on the availability of benefits to legal immigrants. Immigrants were entering the country illegally with the expectation that they would ultimately obtain public benefits, either legally or illegally.
Ovi koji su protiv smatraju da bi pomoc vlade za imigrante privukla imigrante loseg imovinskog stanja u nadi da ce moci zivjeti u Americi na socijali. Medutim u praksi se vidi da imigranti naseljavaju upravo najvise one drzave koje ne daju javne beneficije, a manje naseljavaju one koji imaju drzavne programe za javnu pomoc imigrantima.
Clearly, one of the major disagreements between these two groups centers on the question of whether public benefits motivate immigrants to come to the United States. While there is not yet conclusive evidence as to whether this is the case, there are good indications that it is not. For example, those states with the most generous welfare provisions have had their foreign born growth rate fall while states with the least generous provisions have had their immigrant population increase. “At precisely the point where the states began to create widely varying safety nets for immigrants, (i.e., the late 1990s), immigrants began moving out of those states with the most generous and available social services and into those that are less generous with lesser degrees of availability.”
Furthermore, while those states that provide the fewest substitute programs are largely in the South and Mid-West, immigrant settlement in those areas has been rising dramatically; according to preliminary data from the 2000 census, “the proportion of the foreign born living in the West and the South rose from 37.7 percent in 1970 to 65.5 percent in 2000.” For example, Mississippi provides no state benefits, yet it has the nation’s fastest growing immigrant population, up by 476 percent since 1990.
Ne radi se o tome da mi koji tek dodemo trebamo cuvat svoje pare u djepu i uzet od Uncle Sama sto god se moze kako bi nase ustedevine ostalo sto vise. Isto tako ajmo objektivno razgledati ovaj problem, ne subjektivnim procjenjivanjem mojeg ili necijeg osobnog stanja racuna i kupovne moci. Ponavljam, ne radi se o meni nego opcenitim pravima imigranata. Svako od nas koji dolazi ovdje je nedovoljno informiran o ovom pitanju, a neko ce se sigurno zapitati dali ima pravo na odredenu pomoc. Meni primarno zanima Medicaid i slucaj trudnoce i poroda, medutim ponavljam, ne radi se o meni, niti ikome osobno vec o opcim pravima koje imigranti imaju ili nemaju. Dakle, ajmo objektivno podijeliti relativne podatke o ovom pitanju, ne nagadanja ili osobne procjene.
Evo nasla sam mjerodavnu i updatiranu tabelu federalnih programa za koje imigranti mogu aplicirati:
http://www.nilc.org/pubs/guideupdate...2008-10-01.pdf