Opinions on State Subsidies for Undocumented Immigrants in New York and Illinois

Recently, there have been discussions surrounding state policies that provide financial assistance to undocumented immigrants in New York and Illinois. The New York City plan offers $1,000 per month, while Illinois provides lump-sum payments of $9,000. This policy has sparked debates and opinions from the general public, especially taxpayers in these states.

Opinions and Perspectives

Some believe that financial support to undocumented immigrants is not only necessary but also a moral obligation. They argue that these individuals should be treated humanely and provided with the basics to maintain their well-being. For instance, a taxpayer in New York City, Alex, stated, 'I think it is fine and I believe it is the right thing to do. New York is a sanctuary city, and we should support our sanctuary policies.'

Others, however, believe that such assistance is unnecessary and potentially harmful. They argue that undocumented immigrants should be deported and only offered basic medical care until that happens, rather than direct financial aid. Another New York resident, Mary, said, 'Illegals are deported. They may receive basic medical care and meals until they are deported. Not money or credit cards.'

Arguments for Financial Support

Supporters of these policies argue that the amount of $1,000 per month is insufficient for basic living expenses in New York City. They suggest that the state should step up and provide at least $2,000 per month to ensure these individuals can afford a place to live. In addition, they point out that the money should not be used for medical expenses, emphasizing that the state should provide medical coverage instead. Alex further argued, 'They should bring it up to 2,000 a month and have the state of NY foot the bill. Not to mention you can not have any of that money going to medical expenses so they should be covered by the state for their medical expenses.'

Another important argument in favor of state subsidies is the need for job training. They believe that providing education and training to these individuals can prevent them from living off taxpayers and instead empower them to contribute positively to society. 'Job training would be great too. So no one can say they are living off the tax payer so have them learn a trade,' Alex added.

Criticism of the Policy

Opponents of these policies argue that the process of claiming asylum in the United States is flawed and often unreasonably rigorous. They cite the requirement that asylum seekers must cross the border first, which they believe is not feasible for many due to the lack of proper travel visas. Furthermore, they emphasize that illegally entering the United States is not a criminal offense but a civil one, akin to a parking ticket in a national park.

They argue that the US has treaty obligations to support people who make asylum claims, regardless of how they entered the country. 'Supporting people that have made asylum claims until that claim has been verified is an obligation that the US entered into with every other Western nation as part of a treaty on refugees,' another New Yorker, Tom, noted. 'And yet, it is entirely within the power of Congress to void that treaty. The Republicans control the House, and it should be easy if that’s what they actually wanted to do.'

Conclusion

The debate surrounding state subsidies for undocumented immigrants in New York and Illinois is complex and multifaceted. While some advocate for these policies to support and empower these individuals, others argue they are ineffective and potentially harmful. The path forward requires careful consideration of the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved, including taxpayers, state governments, and the federal government.