Paying the bills - Printable Version +- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums) +-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html) +--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html) +--- Thread: Paying the bills (/thread-3104.html) |
Paying the bills - ShadowHM - 05-01-2007 Hi I just finished reading this article in today's Globe and Mail. (Text cut'n'pasted below) My knee-jerk reaction is: I have trouble sympathizing with the balking sponsers. <_< Why should I pay (with my taxes) for their poor judgement in bringing someone here? And, in particular, why should I pay for their attempt to abrogate a responsibility they contracted for? (Although I did get a chuckle out of one of the reader responses: "Evidently our government believes in never giving a sucker an even break." :lol:) Quote:Sponsors of immigrants balk at paying Paying the bills - Delc - 05-01-2007 So they sponsor people to move to Canada and they expect the rest of the country to pick up the welfare bill? Personally I don't see why they give them welfare at all, but making the sucker that got them in pay for it seems like a good second choice. Paying the bills - Rhydderch Hael - 05-01-2007 Quote:So they sponsor people to move to Canada and they expect the rest of the country to pick up the welfare bill? ...The going idea is that if she had agreed to stay with the fellow and/or married him, she wouldn't have been mooching money from the welfare office in the first place. But as soon as she got on Canadian soil, she split and struck out on her ownâ which, in this case, meant latching onto government assistance. Paying the bills - Chesspiece_face - 05-01-2007 The simple solution seems to be not to offer welfare to individuals that are under this sponsorship agreement. Paying the bills - Occhidiangela - 05-01-2007 Quote:HiIn the old West, such a gal was often referred to as "A Montgomery Ward Wife, Sent on Approval." I concur with your gut feeling that you should not foot the bill for her. Occhi Paying the bills - Doc - 05-01-2007 And this is why men chain womenfolk to the stovepipe and beat them daily till they fall in to total submission. How sad. And to make it clear, I do not endorse this behaviour at all... But this is why some men feel justified in domestic abuse. Paying the bills - Concillian - 05-02-2007 If you're going to make the sponsor financially responsible in this manner, it only makes sense that they also have the authority to force deportation during their term of responsibility. Give them an option to report their sponsored as estranged or otherwise non-compliant and be absolved of financial responsibility at the same time as requesting the government deport the sponsored individual. This would potentially lead to the opposite situation where the person is effectively a slave. There would have to be some boundaries on the reasons for reporting the sponsored... I imagine divorce and not returning phone calls to be acceptable reasons. This way there are checks and balances. Currently, it sounds like an immigrant's paradise. Paying the bills - ima_nerd - 05-02-2007 Quote:Sponsored immigrants have as much right as any Canadian to apply for social assistance, she says. Quote:That same year, there were about 6,500 sponsored immigrants on social assistance in Ontario (less than 1 per cent of the total welfare recipients) at a cost of $65-million.:blink: How exactly does that work? I think the obvious solution is to not let them receive social assistance... they've done nothing to deserve it, after all. The guy who orders a mail order bride may be a shmuck, but he doesn't deserve a free loader latched onto him. Paying the bills - Swiss Mercenary - 05-02-2007 Quote:This would potentially lead to the opposite situation where the person is effectively a slave. Not really. If they go out and get a job, they won't need any sponsorship money. They should only be deported if they can't sustain themselves. Paying the bills - Lissa - 05-02-2007 Quote:In the old West, such a gal was often referred to as In the case of Mr. Dzihic I think he does have a point. He did report her to the Canadian equivalent of the the US INS. He reported her to be deported, yet the Canadian Government never moved on it, even after she signed up for this welfare. So who's really the one at fault here for her taking tax payer money, Mr. Dzihic who reported her immediately for deportation or the Canadian Government that didn't move on this deportation and revocation of sponsorship. The only failing I see by Mr. Dzihic is not making sure she was deported. In the case of Ms. Collum's case, she should have made sure that her soon-to-be former husband got on that plane and left on the plane back to Kenya instead of just giving him the ticket and expecting him to use it. Unlike Mr. Dzihic, it doesn't appear that she took steps to report her soon-to-be former husband to the Canadian Goverment for deportation. In this case, the onus was on her to make sure he was out of the country instead of expecting him to just go on his own. In essence, Mr. Dzihic took necessary steps to get his deadbeat sponsor reported to the Canadian Government to have her removed from the country while Ms. Collum took it upon herself to try and get her deadbeat sponsor out of the country instead of notifying the proper authorities. Paying the bills - yangman - 05-03-2007 Quote:How exactly does that work? It doesn't, but the truth is that it is often notoriously difficult for a immigrant, even with years and years of experience in their field to find a job. My family knows a few people with MSc's and PhD's that has had to work minimum wage for months, even years, before finally finding a job in technical areas they have spent years working in previously. Paying the bills - ima_nerd - 05-03-2007 Quote:It doesn't, but the truth is that it is often notoriously difficult for a immigrant, even with years and years of experience in their field to find a job. My family knows a few people with MSc's and PhD's that has had to work minimum wage for months, even years, before finally finding a job in technical areas they have spent years working in previously.Then they shouldn't have moved there. It's their fault for not checking the job market before up and moving. Paying the bills - ShadowHM - 05-03-2007 Quote:Then they shouldn't have moved there. It's their fault for not checking the job market before up and moving. Not quite. What if they did move here with a spouse who does have a job? There are many permutations that are perfectly sensible moves, even if one does not have a hope of getting a job within one's previous field of expertise. Paying the bills - GhastMaster - 05-03-2007 Quote:Not quite. Sounds to me like Life Sucks somtimes. The sooner we realize that the happier we will be. It does not matter how smart you are or what precautions you take, life can screw you over. That said, I do not think a country should offer welfare to non citizens. Welfare should only be offered for short periods of time to people who pass drug tests and are actively looking for jobs. Certain disabilities however should get full welfare. Paying the bills - kandrathe - 05-04-2007 Quote:Sounds to me like Life Sucks somtimes. The sooner we realize that the happier we will be. It does not matter how smart you are or what precautions you take, life can screw you over.This is the age of abdication of responsibility. The model being implemented worldwide is that the Government takes care of all the problems, and we merely need to work from cradle to grave to pay for it. You don't like your life in your current country? Then, just move to one run by socialists and feed off the state. Your statement that "Life Sucks Sometimes" is also a bit of a cop out. I'd agree that often there are circumstances beyond our prediction and control, but from my observation of "Life", we all make choices and then reap the consequences of those choices. An example; In my college years I went to a Super Bowl party which was getting out of control, so I chose to leave. 30 minutes later those who remained were arrested and had consequences. I helped to bail out my friends out of jail, but I didn't bear the same pain that they did. So it was not "Life" that sucked that day, but their choice to stay just a little longer. There are times when we are ignorant or heedless of the risks to which we obliviously subject ourselves, but the responsibility still remains with the individual. Another example; Again during college, I chose to live in an apartment in a blue collar neighborhood on a major bus line, while my sister chose to live near campus. Her vehicle was vandalized, and damaged at least once per month. My stuff was never touched. I was willing to take a ten minute bus ride to live in an area where people protect their own property (and consequently mine). Being a father now, I'm trying to teach this type of common sense to my boys, but they currently don't get it yet. I do understand my own father a bit better now though. These people that sponsor aliens are probably being led more by their hearts than heads. The sensible thing for the government to do if an alien loses sponsorship would be to deport them. But, the socialists are interested in populating their country with other potential voting socialists. So why not keep them in the country, give them amnesty, and make everyone else pay for it? Paying the bills - ShadowHM - 05-04-2007 Quote: But, the socialists are interested in populating their country with other potential voting socialists. So why not keep them in the country, give them amnesty, and make everyone else pay for it? Aww.... You know me *that* well, do you? :P As you should be aware, kandrathe, I am both a socialist and an emphasizer of personal responsibility. You really should stop using such a wide brush when you paint others. ;) Welfare for those who are in need is not something I am willing to give up. Two of my friends were saved by welfare when unforeseen circumstances brought them low. But it should not be and is not enough for high living. In both those cases, it was enough to help them get back on track, get re-educated and back to work. As with any other right, there can be and will be those who abuse it. So be it. With sponsership, you sign on the dotted line when you bring the person in. And you pay for your mistakes. Paying the bills - kandrathe - 05-05-2007 Quote:...I am happy that your friends were helped. I don't agree with the "Charity by Force" approach of socialism. The assumption by government is that people are to calloused to help the needy, while history has shown the opposite. It is rare that someone looking for help does not find it. People in the US are donating over $300 billion a year to worthy causes. I wouldn't be against the government helping guide the needy people to the resources they need. Hopefully your friends feel compelled to return the graciousness shown to them. What I see with socialism is a slippery slope that we ARE sliding down. If we can enforce the elimination of poverty, next we can raise the bar on how we define poverty. After that we can tell you how to raise your children, and what they should be learning. Then we can outlaw what you are thinking. The key point is that not all people deserve success, because they've done nothing to earn it. The government takes your money to give to the needy, but also the undeserving. They owe the government nothing in return. No ones wants poor people starving, or homeless, so there does need to be a safety net. I don't feel it needs to be supplied by the government, but rather the government can coordinate and fill in the gaps. Paying the bills - Swiss Mercenary - 05-05-2007 Quote:I am happy that your friends were helped. I don't agree with the "Charity by Force" approach of socialism. Yet, you agree with "Funding policing by force", "Road upkeep by force", and many other things thata re done by "Force" Quote:What I see with socialism is a slippery slope that we ARE sliding down. And likewise, I can see your ideas as a slippery slope that will ineviatably lead to The Irish Problem with the inevitable Modest Proposal. There's a reason for why this is called the slippery slope fallacy. Paying the bills - kandrathe - 05-08-2007 Quote:Yet, you agree with "Funding policing by force", "Road upkeep by force", and many other things thata re done by "Force"But... I don't. I agree we need a police force and roads. I believe I've expressed before that my views are that those who use the thing should pay for it. So, for police it would be property taxes for my local police. For Highway Patrol and other State officers it would be from the States general funds. For a State tax I would like to see consumption based taxes only. I would like to see no income tax at all. Consumption is a voluntary tax. If you don't like the price of a good or service, then you can choose not to consume it. I would like to see zero sales taxes on farm produce that are for human consumption, and a modest sales tax on processed food. I would also limit taxes on health care and medicine. At the Federal level it would be up to the States to negotiate on how to fund the Federal government, but the apportionment should be based on the States population. As for the slippery slope... Let's look at France's socialism and its severe back lash, shall we? Great post on Soviet ideological warfare Better yet, let's explore The Netherlands two social slippery slope issues; 1st opening up the definition of marriage... Quote:The Dutch journey towards the destruction of marriage began when they legalized homosexual civil unions in 1998. This was followed in a mere three year's time by the legalization of homosexual marriage and adoption of children. Now just four years later they have certified the civil union of one man and two lesbians.and 2nd euthanasia. Quote:When it comes to the sanctity of life, the Dutch have even more to be proud of. In 2001 they began with voluntary euthanasia for people that were terminally ill, but then moved rapidly to expand the franchise to those who were disabled. By 2004 they had moved to the euthanasia of disabled and terminally ill newborn babies and granted twelve-year olds the right to assisted suicide without parental consent. In addition, they began to allow the euthanasia of the terminally ill who were mentally incapable of deciding whether they wanted to live or die.Now, I'm not taking a stand on either of these Netherlands socialist items, but using them to illustrate what I mean by a socialist slippery slope. We've hashed out out views on both topics in the past. Here is a local example from my State. We went along with the "ideological" Federal program labeled "State Children's Health Insurance Program". Which politician could ever be against health care for low income children? The reality is that in Minnesota, 87% of the participants in the program are adults. We have 5 State/Federal health insurance programs in Minnesota. The legislature is trying to pass legislation this session that would extend State low income health coverage to some households that make up to $100K in income. Paying the bills - Jester - 05-08-2007 Quote:As for the slippery slope... Let's look at France, shall we? A slippery slope that leads all the way to stinky cheeses and bad driving? -Jester |