Repay 3 years welfare to get pathway to citizenship

[tonyz]

Some interesting concepts discussed below...will our legislators build in such proposals into the inevitable pathways created under immigration reform. Should they?

Switzerland bans citizenship to anyone who has lived on welfare in the country in the previous three years unless they pay back the money they received

The ban affects anyone who has been on handouts in the previous three years

Applicants barred from citizenship if they can't pay back money they were given

Rules tightened after Switzerland's new civil rights came in to effect on January 1

Julian Robinson for MailOnline
PUBLISHED: 10:07 EST, 10 January 2018 | UPDATED: 10:13 EST, 10 January 2018

Switzerland has banned citizenship to anyone who has lived on welfare in the country in the previous three years unless they pay back the money they received.

An earlier law made it possible for migrants to apply for citizenship provided they were not on state handouts when they made their application.
But the rules have since been tightened as part of a new civil rights act which came into effect on January 1.

The new legislation also requires applicants to prove a greater level of integration if their bid is to be successful, according to Kronen Zeitung.

As part of the new criteria they must show they have 'cultivated contacts' with a number of Swiss people.

There are also new language requirements, which vary depending on the canton they are living in.

Although not part of the European Union the Swiss Government has pledged to play its part in resettling families fleeing Syria.

In 2016, they announced they would take 3,000 asylum seekers from the war-torn country.

It was reported at the time that the country also aimed to settle up to 50,000 asylum seekers who had managed to make their way across the border and into Switzerland, mostly by crossing from with Italy following a perilous journey.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5254835/Switzerland-clampdown-citizenship-applications.html

[Pete]

Why get citizenship if you get the welfare for free?

[tonyz]

Why get citizenship if you get the welfare for free?

Citizenship presumably gets one the right to vote (chain migration?).

The hurdles as set forth in the article don't seem too difficult.

[cbtengr]

The nerve of that government.

[tonyz]

You don't need citizenship to vote in some states it seems.

So, among other things we need immigration reform, welfare reform and voting reform.

But, sticking with the topic of the week - immigration reform - should our legislators provide for some form of welfare repayment requirements in any proposed immigration reform legislation? Is that realistic?

Pete asks a good question? Why do I need to become a citizen if I continue to receive welfare?

You followed up by pointing out that non-citizens may already participate in some voting precincts.

The simple observations shared here illustrate how complex and how screwed up our system currently is. And, they illustrate how the current system is a burden on its own productive tax paying citizens.

Is the financial burden placed on the taxpayer sustainable? Should a governement not look to provide economic advancement and stability for its own citizens, first and foremost? Don't we have enough citizens that need government help, first?

It's going to be quite an achievement if Trump can get both sides to engage in these discussions and to truly revamp a system that if not undeniably broken - is unquestionably unsustainable.

[tonyz]

It is not necessarily the system its self that is screwed up but does need some reform. It is the government not following the laws as they are written that is the big problem.

1. Sanctuary states are illegal should not happen
2. voter fraud- again should not happen but politics give a wink and a nod when it benefits the party in power. Enforce the laws and put the people in prison that commit it. Not hard if you make sure people have an ID.
3. It is illegal to hire illegals. Start hitting the employers that hire them with prison time. The laws are there we do not enforce them.

If people think the Republican party wants to stop illegal immigration they could but neither party really wants to. Why? Because it provides cheap labor for the big wigs and second order of effects it drives down wages for the legal workers.

The root cause is all the same not enforcing laws already on the books. New laws will not change that.

Brush,

You're right about the notion of enforcing existing law will improve things.

But, think "inertia" and "buy in" - no doubt we need change. Telling a bunch of ego-maniacs to just start enforcing what someone else wrote ain't got it done, yet.

Human nature such as it is...these folks like to think they have all the answers...someone's got to nudge them to just have the discussions. They start focusing on addressing undeniable problems...well you might get some traction and movement against the natural inertia built up in D.C. Also, getting them talking provides an opportunity for buy-in. There's a greater likelihood of something getting done if these ego-maniacs think they had the "case cracker" in those discussions.

Anyway, threw that article out there as food for thought.

Interesting times !

[Badger52]

In 2016, they announced they would take 3,000 asylum seekers from the war-torn country.That's like a daily manifest here, isn't it?

[tonyz]

That's like a daily manifest here, isn't it?

At one border crossing.

[Pete]

Look for a government shut down Friday.

The Fake News outlets blamed R's last time. They will blame R's this time also.