Should legal immigrants get food stamps? - Page 6  

I'm not calling you a liar, but do you have a link to this. If this is true, I would love to see what they're selling.

While I am sitting here pecking away, there is someone that I am not worthy of doing way more with way less. There are others above me and below me. The older I get, the less judgmental I become.

How horrible is it that we're to the point where our over-priviledged citizens are for starving poor, disadvantaged, people and children just because they haven't managed to get themselves to the same position as someone else who may have had it handed to them on a silver platter. there may have been some workor effort in there, but the opportunities are no where near the same. Argue all you want, but I'm afraid you're unaware of reality. What are you REALLY giving up here? it may suck to see the money you earned go to the government which can then be used for things like food stamps, but I'm sure you still get by, or better. I've heard stories from my mother (elementary school teacher) about children who don't have enough food to eat, and families who can't afford christmas dinner. Just IMAGINE being in that position. Having to feed your child macaroni and cheese, the cheap brand at that, on Christmas Day! And while the rich are sitting with their catered meals and shining silverware, they are bitching about how they are paying for foodstamps for some immigrants? Many of whom probably came to NA to escape troubles like war in their own countries. I admire the ability to get up and move to a country where they appear to be far from welcome, in an attempt to be able to afford better opportunitues for themsleves and their children. I have faith that our generation can make some serious changes, but after reading this post I am INCREDIBLY SAD that that hope may be unrealistic.
Why don't you go spend some time at a soup kitchen or volunteer at a shelter or comunity centre where you can see the real struggles these people face before judging how easy it would be for them to make these miraculous changes in their lives?

I guess it all depends on your point of view... It shouldn't be an issue of economics, it should be one of humanity. What do you value more, money (ie, power) or people?

The logical fallacy was the part of Barbie's post in quotations (which, originally, was not made by her) and I proceeded to give my reasons as to why. I was not challenging Barbie, I was challenging the original poster because Barbie pointed out that I didn't comment on that part of arriarri's post. I find it humorous that you should say I've gone into this without researching when it's clearly you who is guilty of making comments purely on emotion.

Everyone without a mental handicap has the ability to learn. If you try hard enough you can become a doctor. People aren't born attorneys, someone with a highly regarded position in life certainly has done some work to get where they are today. Saying that some people "just aren't cut out" for the intellectually strenuous fields is a cop out.

We're each entitled to our own opinions as to how life should be conducted, I personally feel that money is the most important thing in the world and don't see it as sensible to inhibit one's ability to earn income in order to benefit another individual who I don't deem deserving of my money. I'm all for charitable donations after the fact... but helping the little guy while economically advancing yourself just doesn't seem like the best idea for the bottom line.

Your last comment is a laughably blind and "fallacious" assumption. I suggest that you try to go directly for the points I've brought up instead of simply insinuating that I'm a bad person because of my opinions, just because your little gal pals feel that you're a heroin doesn't mean that you actually have any sound arguments.

Casey's on heroin?

I just saw this post.... and I certainly question how much you realy know about how First Nations peoles are treated in the US. They may still be living in tents and pissing in the woods but who is to say they wouldn't be happier that way! The lifestyle of many first nations tribes is very connected to nature and they live a more typical western lifestyle because they have to now. Een if they wanted to go back to natural use of their lands how could they with the US governent stealing their property, not allowing them enough space to raise cattle or make a living, storing nuclear wastes on spiritual landmarks. These people are still GREATLY taken advantage of in many parts of North America, so white people coming ere was not as great an idea to them as you may think.

No one that is not disabled should be able to get food stamps, if you are physically healty, mentally stable, GO TO WORK.

Well said.

As to the original question, I believe that a social safety net is important. A program to help people through hard times, knowing that your kids won't starve to death while you find another job or train for the skills to get a better job allows people to make it through the rough patches we all have. There should probably be a time frame on such things, and safeguards to prevent abuse, but it should still be there.

I remember one HF'er posted pics of her parents house, which was very nice, and she told the story of when her parents first came to Canada they had to use the food bank to get by . . . and now her father runs a succesful business. I personally know many immigrants who have very similar stores. Came here with almost nothing, have worked hard and scraped by and now run very succesful and established businesses.

My personal point of view.... people are people, doesn't matter if they are from America, Israel, Afria, Bosnia... etc. What makes an american better? I know they pay taxes but, everyone is just looking for some help. Everyone's opinion will differ, but I dont' think when you're giving aid, regardless who donates to it, you can really be choosy about who to give it to, how can you possible turn someone down who needs help to feed their family??

That was my 2 cents.

continue with your debate.

Finland, Norway,... they do this, among others. But it seems only to really work in 'non-confrontational' countries, just from my casual observation.

this is just great! argue on! people are generally surprised to find out we give only .18%(i.e. less than one fifth of one percent) of our gdp to international aid. in addition, you might be surprised to find out that food stamps give a person less than $100 a month to eat. also, food stamp usage has decreased from 26.6 million people in 1995 to 17.2 million people in 2000. the cost is 17 billion dollars.

personally, i'd rather spend my tax dollars on food for children rather than bombs to kill children.

To claim that you have MORE of a right to something for being arbitrarily born in a certain country, through no feat of your own, I think is pretty ridiculous. A lot of US citizens didn't choose to work to live here, they hit the birth lotto and ended up born here. A country is an abstract product of people's need for society and organization. It shouldn't really mean anything so emotional to any rational person... once this is understood, a lot of these arguments are moot.

That said, I think food stamps should be available to whoever needs them.

This is rubbish. I can't argue when you are making up information and presenting it as fact. Please return to whatever schools gave you any degree you might have and tell them that you want your money back.

I could sit here and try to explain to you about how you are buying into a paternalistic colonial discourse which relies on racism to deny the subjectivity of an entire group of people, but frankly it is way over your head. You are a racist, plain and simple.

Just in case anyone else thinks that the above is true (I am done arguing with a racist):

Native Americans were spread all over the continent of the United States. There was most certainly a concept of land ownership. Simply because many tribes were nomadic does not mean that they did not have clear territories and defend those terretories with their lives. They may not have been densly populated, but ask Australia if anyone is allowed to take over their outback just because it is uninhabited.

Native Americans had pictographic writing and a rich oral history. The nature of their society was such that they had no real need for writing at that time.

Also, it is important to remember the element that geography plays in such developments as language. The Phoenician/Greek alphabet became dominant throughout the European continent as it expanded, encountered new cultures and evolved. The mesoAmerican alphabet was still very isolated at the point of European invasion.

The wheel statement is grossly inaccurate. They did have the wheel. It was not being used in as advanced a way, but it was there.

Europeans didn't have those things (except alcohol) at the time they colonized this country. There is no way of knowing what would have happened to the Native American society had it not been almost completely decimated. They had evolved socially as a people, so it stands to reason that they would have developed and not still be living in tents pissing in the woods.

Basically, this last quote from the racist is a product of the myth of American exceptionalism. The notion that we (in this case I am referring to the European colonizers as we) operate on a principle belief that our way is the only right way of living and that because of this we are entitled to spread our way of life no matter the cost to anyone in our way.

Sadly, this myth is still widely perpetuated by our country's actions...as reflected in the words of our resident racist.

Yes Begret...can't you tell.

i'd say something, but i dont know what we're arguing about anymore.

That's profound, really It's gone global.

Where are these comments I have made that are purely emotional? This is an issue that is very important to me and it deals with the human race. Human beings have emotion and so does writing. The job of an argument is to persuade and I will do that in the best way I can. Rhetorical strategy encourages and in fact calls for appeals to emotion, it does not make the argument fallacious unless the emotional appeal is one of the premises of the argument. But find me something I have said that is purely emotional...go on...do it. Oh...and you still don't understand what logical fallacy means.


Sorry kiddo, this isn't true. A person with an IQ of 105 isn't handicapped, but they are never going to be a doctor either. The challenges of being a medical physician require an ability to learn and retain knowledge that is not "standard" in a human being. Certainly people have the capacity to learn, but the capacity is not infinite. Don't act like everyone is on a level playing field when they aren't. That is actually buying into some of the more useless ideas in communism.

Of course…this is all very OT and has to do far more with generational poverty than it does with the issue of giving food stamps to immigrants.


So...I think that there should be some sort of law that prevents people who got a B or lower in their freshman rhetoric from talking about logical fallacies. You really don't even understand what it means do you?

Your statement that the single mother working at Walmart has no one to blame but herself is very clearly a statement of moral judgment. You opened the door for a discussion of personal worth at that point. Don’t blame me just because you don’t care for how it reflects on you.

I have stated my argument several times, but I will go ahead and do it again since you asked so nicely.

The legal immigrants to this country who may be in need of assistance in the form of food stamps are not a population that abuses that system. Rather, they are transitory populations with a heavy and proven investment in building successful lives in a new country. These people then become contributing members of our society.

Now…read this part too, because it is important.

The major problem I have with YOUR argument, and the point at which it basically falls apart due to your lack of knowledge on the topic, is that you equivocate legal immigrant populations with generational poverty populations. They are not the same groups of people; they do not behave in the same way. They come from vastly different experiences, which means that your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy of inductive generalization.

This is where your lack of knowledge and experience on this subject is really glaring. Have you ever read ANYTHING about migrancy apart from poorly-researched internet material? Have you even read that?

I am of the opinion that the reason some of my gal pals respond favorably to what I have to say probably stems from the fact that I am not just talking out my ass. I have read books about what I am talking about, I have discussed it with others who knew far more than I did, I have written about it until I understood what I was dealing with and I have looked at the theoretical principles that help to these understand sociological behaviors. I am truly flattered that people whose intelligence I have such respect for agree with some of the things I have to say.

I have to tell you that sitting around and attempting to have a productive debate with someone who thinks that throwing around terms like "logical fallacy" means that they are smart and educated when they don't even use the term properly is really feeling like an exercise in futility.

please casey, just stop

great use of "equivocate" though.

I SAID, that's profound, really It's gone global. I was agreeing w/ you

everyone shud just chilll and go watch the pursuit of happiness ^_^

Uhm...why? Because you disagree, you don't understand or something else?