Rhetoric Of Welfare Immigration

Words: 1033
Pages: 5

The subject of the story is welfare immigration. Overall, it is about how illegal immigrants may be affected under the new administration. The article touches base on whether the United States should allow for illegal immigrants that will rely on taxpayer money to remain. Essentially, this article highlights the rhetoric used throughout the Trump campaign which was deemed as controversial and may have swung many voters in either direction of the aisle. It is not certain what the new administration will do in terms of illegal immigration and welfare programs like food stamps, housing, etc. There has been no plan rolled out. However, the Mexican-American border has been green lit to have a large wall built. Based on this information the …show more content…
It is questioning the possible plan to deport immigrants who receive any form of public assistance. The auspices of this issue are important to this story because they will be allowing thousands if not millions of families to stay intact rather than get separated through mass deportations.There is also support for the issue when touching on the subject of jobs and wages. It is not clear exactly how much illegal immigration affects these aspects but this topic ties into the original argument of welfare because by deporting those who rely on assistance it frees up the job market which is a common theme throughout the 2016 election. The article emphasizes on one controversial aspect of welfare amongst a plethora which is being talked about today. The core point of disagreement is the reach of the government on the lives of the citizens' private lives. Especially in the case of healthcare where it is still being debated whether or not it is a right to have health …show more content…
Such as the programs they can and can not apply for. Notably, the article contained policies that affect illegal immigrants attempting to receive government assistance. Welfare is not my strength when recalling policies and statistics, therefore, I learned some facts along the way which I place as for a greater importance than opinion. This article was intended to argue against the possible plan by the Trump administration however, I found that it lacked valuable arguments that would persuade me to their side. It was an article ruled by feelings and in my opinion, feelings should not dictate policy. In some cases, the information provided by the authors discredited them or were counterproductive to their argument. For example “The order would rescind any work visa provisions for foreign nationals found not to be in ‘the national interest’ or found to be in violation of U.S. immigration laws.” This works against the author's’ argument because it makes no sense in my mind that people would be awarded assistance funded by U.S taxpayers to people who are violating the law. The author did point out that this would not affect refugees and points out that refugee dependency falls over time. I found this confusing because it would make more sense to deport those who are not complying with the law and are not in our nation’s interest in order to make room for refugees