It'd be fair to say that vocal hostility toward immigration is more concentrated in one party - and that that party is spread across the WH and Congress.
To be reasonable tho, effective hostility toward immigration is historically well represented in both parties (eg: immigration policies under the previous admin).
Excluding certain immigrants from taxpayer-funded public benefits isn't "hostility." Deciding to take care of citizens and permanent residents and not others, or denying government benefits to create disincentives for illegal immigration, is a legitimate exercise of a people's right to self-determination.
Giving government benefits to illegal immigrants is a tough issue. On one hand, its rightfully an unpopular policy and risks creating incentives to immigrate illegally. On the other hand, denying benefits risks creating a permanent underclass of people who are prevented from integrating. I tend to believe the best approach is to rigorously enforce immigration restrictions, while including those who the country isn't willing to exclude or deport within the welfare system. But these should be viewed as policy choices, not in terms of "hostility" or some such silliness.
You seem to have missed that the point was that they denied benefits to US citizens, merely because someone else in the household did not have a SSN.
But regarding actual illegal immigrants, it's amazing how many people complain about "giving" benefits to immigrants while apparently being completely unaware (or conveniently forgetting) that a significant fraction (perhaps even a majority) of those immigrants actually pay taxes.
> You seem to have missed that the point was that they denied benefits to US citizens, merely because someone else in the household did not have a SSN.
The tax code--not just for this purpose, but pretty much all purposes--treats households filing a joint return as a single economic unit.
> But regarding actual illegal immigrants, it's amazing how many people complain about "giving" benefits to immigrants while apparently being completely unaware (or conveniently forgetting) that a significant fraction (perhaps even a majority) of those immigrants actually pay taxes.
Those taxes don't come close to paying for the benefits they use--such as cross-subsidized emergency healthcare, schooling, etc.
Yes, I will complain about illegal aliens getting benefits. Those benefits are not meant for them. They are taking resources from law-abiding citizens & residents. The cost of illegal aliens far outweighs any amount they pay in taxes [1].
> At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal
aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs
associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
> Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues
collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming
tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.
A significant fraction of those illegal aliens actually commit fraud by using someone else's SSN. And a large amount of others pay zero tax, because they are paid under the table.
Spare me your criminal-coddling, all illegal aliens should be deported immediately.
> Excluding certain immigrants from taxpayer-funded public benefits isn't "hostility."
Maybe, but the vocal hostility toward immigrants in the Republican Party is, well, vocal hostility, and not limited to a policy preference for excluding certain immigrants from taxpayer-funded benefits.
The "vocal hostility" (such as it is) rests on policy. The U.S. has twice as many illegal immigrants as "Europe" (EU-27+UK+EFTA), despite having a third less people overall. That is the result of policies--lax border enforcement, lack of enforcement of work eligibility requirements, etc.
People get hostile when other people don't follow the rules and the government doesn't enforce the rules. (E.g. Wall Street after the 2009 recession.) But that's still a matter of policy.
