A Quote by Marco Rubio

First, undoubtedly, there are some people who are coming from Cuba who immediately, or from any other country, benefit. But, what is the difference between that and someone who is coming from Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico, etc.? That is, we are simply going to say that someone who comes from another country to the United States - the first five years they're here - they don't qualify for federal benefits. They may benefit from local benefits, state benefits. Those decisions belong to other jurisdictions.
Cubans who arrive and can prove that they are refugees who are truly fleeing political persecution will continue to qualify as refugees. The only thing that I've asked for is to do away with automatic benefits granted to someone, basically, Cubans who come from Cuba, if it cannot be verified that they are refugees fleeing political persecution, so they will be treated the same way as any other immigrant who arrives in the United States, which is that legal immigrants in the United States don't have the right to any federal benefits for five years.
If someone walked along any high street anywhere in London, and probably anywhere in the country, and looked into a letting agency, they would see a sign saying, 'No benefits here.' In other words, anyone in receipt of a state benefit is not allowed to apply for a private rented flat from that agent.
People think of taxes as money just being robbed from you. They don't consider the benefits of paying taxes. The benefits that they get and also the benefit of just being a part of a large group of people: a town, or a city, or a country, or a society that allegedly should stand together and all try to help each other.
There are some benefits [that illegal aliens] clearly ought not have...[including] health benefits and welfare benefits and others that serve as a magnet attracting people here from other countries.
SNAP benefits help local economies because the benefits are spent at local grocery stores - with locally grown and locally-made products. I remember many years ago, while on food stamps, I advocated for the benefits to be spent at local farmers markets - a move that has helped local economies even more.
Investment in America does not just benefit the United States - it benefits the world.
Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?
We have seen in recent years a large increase in the number of people coming in and cases of people going back, living in Cuba, but still receiving American benefits. That cannot be justified.
I'm simply asking that people who arrive from Cuba receive the same treatment as any other immigrant who comes from another country. The only difference, obviously, is that the Cuban Adjustment Act will remain in effect, that a Cuban who arrives today from Cuba may remain in the U.S.
We have to live with the rest of the world. And it's a mistake, in my view. Trade has generally developed in this country. We actually export 12 or 13 percent of our GDP. It was only 5 percent in 1970. But it benefits us. It benefits the rest of the world. It doesn't benefit the steelworker maybe in Ohio. And that's the problem that has to be addressed, because when you have something that's good for society, but terribly harmful for given individuals, we have got to make sure those individuals are taken care of.
As economic globalization gathers momentum, China and the United States have become highly interdependent economically. Such economic relations would not enjoy sustained, rapid growth if they were not based on mutual benefit or if they failed to deliver great benefits to the United States.
President Clinton not only benefits by gay and lesbian votes, but he benefits by showing the nation that he is a strong leader who implements his beliefs, who stands firm by those who he believes are being treated unfairly, and I think people respect that kind of leadership in the country.
My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders.
At the Rose bowl, when America was playing Mexico, and those that live in this country who have come here from Mexico booed the United States - there's a huge problem with that. This is not the first time that this has happened and I think that, that is because in the United States the cultural Marxist ideas of separating people into different racial groups.
Some good employers provide people benefits. Many do not. The ones that do not tend to be the low end of the pay scale. This program will give those employers a way to support their employees. The employees will get this benefit, making it more likely that their employee will come back to them - that's a benefit for the employer over the long term and a benefit for the employee and all the while supporting families in their time of need.
The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!