Show or Substance?

Will immigration ban really help American workers?

This week, President Donald Trump signed an executive oder temporarily banning immigration to the U.S. The order was not, as some surmise, to safeguard the nation’s health during the coronavirus outbreak. Instead, the president said it was to protect American jobs once the country starts to recover from the widespread economic shutdown.

“In order to protect our great American workers, I’ve just signed an executive order temporarily suspending immigration into the United States,” the president said. “This will ensure that unemployed Americans of all backgrounds will be first in line for jobs as our economy reopens.”

Critics said the order is basically a publicity move pandering to anti-immigrant sentiments. They also note that foreign-born health care workers are crucial in the fight against COVID19.

We want to know what you think. Do you think President Trump’s order will help Americans get back to work once this crisis passes? Or is this more of a symbolic gesture that won’t have that much positive impact?

Send your response (50 words maximum) to opinion@texarkanagazette.com by Wednesday, April 29. You can also mail your response to the Texarkana Gazette Friday Poll, at P.O. Box 621, Texarkana, TX 75504 or drop it off at our office, 101 E. Broad St., Texarkana, Ark. Be sure to include your name, address and phone number. We will print as many responses as we can in next Friday’s paper.

Last Week: Seizing Stimulus??

Last week’s question was about creditors being able to seize recent COVID-19 stimulus payments to individuals. Should the federal government prohibit creditors from garnisheeing stimulus payments? Or should creditors be able to seize these payments from those who owe money?

From www.facebook.com/texarkanagazette

Many know how to work the system very well. Yes, creditors should be able to get what is owed to them. If you owe a bank for over drawing an account, the bank should get what they are owed.

You should always pay your creditors. That being said, food comes first. It should at least be capped.

Allowing banks and creditors to seize this money is reprehensible.

The money is being given out specifically so people can pay bills and buy food. Creditors and banks should have absolutely no say in this money.

If you owe it should be taken. Pay your bills and it won’t be an issue.

I don’t think it should, being many are out of work barely getting by. However, viewing many on FB boasting about new TV’s and 4 wheelers or non essential items being purchased not with their tax money but the stimulus check just upsets me. That money is there to help with utilities, rent (mortgages) and food. I do feel the protection of garnishment should be in place tho to protect those that actually utilize their money in a proper manner.

Given that many of these people who owe such are using the money to purchase TVs, high dollar clothes, or other nonessential items instead of taking care of their debts, yes the creditors should be able to affect however is possible.

I thank God that my job is essential because government took my stimulus money

Considering unemployment plus the “bonus” money is more per week than many full time jobs around here they should be able to meet their obligations and possibly get ahead until it stops and they go back to work.

Well I guess even the ones that don’t pay their way will learn the hard way … life is tough … reap it … Nothing is for free

I say no. The one size fits all approach unfortunately will be misused by some but why punish all just to catch a few. People need as much help as they can get. We can’t tell them how to use that help but rather know that they were given help. After all, the billions being given to the wealthy are just overlooked while we protest the little guys getting an extra $1200.

They should be protected. Corporations are already being given money, much more than the working class.

It should be garnished from people who owe child support.