Jump to content

New Trump rule targets poor and could cut legal immigration in half, advocates say


webfact

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, Inc.

You might want to research their treatment at Ellis Is. a bit. Not a bed of roses by any stretch..... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

You might want to research their treatment at Ellis Is. a bit. Not a bed of roses by any stretch..... 

Never said it was. 

 

Just quoting the sentiments of those with a greater deal of empathy than trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 ... administration unveiled a sweeping rule on Monday that some experts say could cut legal immigration in half by denying visas and permanent residency to hundreds of thousands of people for being too poor.

Sounds a bit like Thailand's new utopia immigration rules ironically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who will employers get to to work for them to make them rich?

where are the charges against the employers?

 

There are no rich people unless there are poor people to do the work. With trumps idea there will be no immgrants to do the poor work.

 

welcome to the high cost of living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Credo said:

This should be interesting.   I've lived and worked in a lot of countries and I haven't met many wealthy people who wanted to immigrate to the US.   I've met a lot of well educated, young people who did though, but they had no money.

 

 

That's funny. Just look at cable tv on any given day and look how many wealthy celebrities in fact have done just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sujo said:

Who will employers get to to work for them to make them rich?

where are the charges against the employers?

 

There are no rich people unless there are poor people to do the work. With trumps idea there will be no immgrants to do the poor work.

 

welcome to the high cost of living.

Exactly. White men getting rich on the backs of the poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many have asked when was the "great" in the MAGA slogan?

Perhaps they mean 1893.

A similar public charge policy was in effect then to keep out the IRISH.

This is all so depressing.

 

 orangemanbad.jpg.752458febcd64015a7c8a215d08787b4.jpg

Quote

An 1893 cartoon titled "Looking Backward" depicts the irony of American immigrants turning away additional newcomers. The caption reads: "They would close to the new-comer the bridge that carried them and their fathers over."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So less legal immigration would mean more illegal immigration.  And perhaps more asylum seekers.  It appears Guatemala will not be that "safe country" that the US was demanding....

 

[Guatemala's President-Elect Says the Country Can't do a Migrant Deal with the U.S.]

 

https://time.com/5651664/guatemala-president-elect-us-migrant-deal/

 

So much winning....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

So less legal immigration would mean more illegal immigration.  And perhaps more asylum seekers.  It appears Guatemala will not be that "safe country" that the US was demanding....

 

[Guatemala's President-Elect Says the Country Can't do a Migrant Deal with the U.S.]

 

https://time.com/5651664/guatemala-president-elect-us-migrant-deal/

 

So much winning....

Yes, this will be one of the reasons Trump needs more money for the wall soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Berkshire said:

So less legal immigration would mean more illegal immigration.  And perhaps more asylum seekers.  It appears Guatemala will not be that "safe country" that the US was demanding....

 

[Guatemala's President-Elect Says the Country Can't do a Migrant Deal with the U.S.]

 

https://time.com/5651664/guatemala-president-elect-us-migrant-deal/

 

So much winning....

trump has cut vetted asylum seeker intake from 100k p.a. to 30k p.a. Possibly eventual none permitted entry if trump retains power in 2020.  trump appears to be gradually implementing Steve Miller's advocacy for zero migrant intake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Immigration has many points of view.  I remember reading about the late 1800s and early 1900s where an immigrant was supposed to show they had some skill or special knowledge that would be useful to the USA, or show or explain how they would work or support themselves and their family.  Not sure any such questions are even asked these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2019 at 11:22 AM, Bluespunk said:

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, Inc.

Things have changed a bit, in some ways, since 1886.  America's shores are now teeming, with plenty of its own wreteched refuse, homeless and a troubling financial trajectory. 

 

Things have changed since the 2nd Ammendment was penned, and that's a key argument in the challenge.  Not that I disagree with the challenge to it, just interesting to note the selective use of history and emotion.

 

Also interesting that the statue's designer intended it for Egypt, on the Suez Canal, but it was rejected.  And so the location, and the narrative, shifted. 

 

https://blogs.voanews.com/all-about-america/2014/10/08/how-the-statue-of-liberty-almost-ended-up-in-egypt/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Things have changed a bit, in some ways, since 1886.  America's shores are now teeming, with plenty of its own wreteched refuse, homeless and a troubling financial trajectory. 

 

Things have changed since the 2nd Ammendment was penned, and that's a key argument in the challenge.  Not that I disagree with the challenge to it, just interesting to note the selective use of history and emotion.

 

Also interesting that the statue's designer intended it for Egypt, on the Suez Canal, but it was rejected.  And so the location, and the narrative, shifted. 

 

https://blogs.voanews.com/all-about-america/2014/10/08/how-the-statue-of-liberty-almost-ended-up-in-egypt/

Nothing changes the fact that those who penned those words had more decency, empathy and moral fibre than the current occupant of the White House and his baying maga herd. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Nothing changes the fact that those who penned those words had more decency, empathy and moral fibre than the current occupant of the White House and his baying maga herd. 

Never met her so I can't say.  She died of cancer, age 38, 1887.

 

Born into a wealthy New York family, a talented writer, political activist, among other pursuits, she wasn't interested but was eventually persuaded by the idea that the statue would (probably) be an important, grand symbol in an auspicious location.  So there's a hint that her motivation may have been rooted in ego and self-promotion - familiar Trump traits but of course, not limited to him.

 

She finally agreed to do it for an auction to help fund the statue's placement, for which her name and work would be associated. 

 

The statue's designer, originally inspired by the Sphynx, flip flopped after rejection by Egypt.  America was booming, so he followed the money and changed the narrative to suit.  Artists do what they gotta do to get their projects funded.

 

Appears there was no connection between the sonnet's author and the statue designer, or his revised intent, which was to memoralize the strong bond between France and America, not immigrant love.  The sonnet's author was apparently involved with helping Jewish immigrants from Europe (her parents were Jewish immigrants to the US), so I reckon she drew some inspiration from there, which is seized upon by liberal sentiment.

 

Should a country, its people and govermment, be constrained in perpetuity by a statue and a sonnet?  Or should Immigration be policy (which it is), flexible  as conditions in the country change.  I certainly don't think the government should be constrained from adjusting policy because of a poem, or a statue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

Immigration has many points of view.  I remember reading about the late 1800s and early 1900s where an immigrant was supposed to show they had some skill or special knowledge that would be useful to the USA, or show or explain how they would work or support themselves and their family.  Not sure any such questions are even asked these days.

The process of legally immigrating to the US requires numerous tests.   A person has to be medically cleared of a host of infections diseases.   The medical exam and tests have to be done by facilities that approved by the US Embassy of each country.    The applicant also goes through a rather rigorous police clearance process.    All biodata on family is collected.

The persons educational background, degrees and training is taken into account as are job skills.   There has to be sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption a person will become a public charge.   This includes cash and or legally-binding sponsorships that will put the applicant above the poverty line.   The sponsorship is binding on the sponsor for 5 years.  If a sponsor pulls the sponsorship, the applicant may be deported.   As long as they remain in the US, the sponsor is responsible for their care and maintenance.  

 

Most public assistance is not available to immigrants.   There are a few exceptions, such as the WIC , which is primarily a nutrition program for pregnant women and for families with a newborn infant.   There may be state/local assistance programs that allow for immigrant eligibility, but these are rare and less common, but may include minor medical screening and procedures such as vaccinations, etc.

 

So, if you are indigent, unable to support yourself and you have no money your application will never be approved.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 55Jay said:

Never met her so I can't say.  She died of cancer, age 38, 1887.

 

Born into a wealthy New York family, a talented writer, political activist, among other pursuits, she wasn't interested but was eventually persuaded by the idea that the statue would (probably) be an important, grand symbol in an auspicious location.  So there's a hint that her motivation may have been rooted in ego and self-promotion - familiar Trump traits but of course, not limited to him.

 

She finally agreed to do it for an auction to help fund the statue's placement, for which her name and work would be associated. 

 

The statue's designer, originally inspired by the Sphynx, flip flopped after rejection by Egypt.  America was booming, so he followed the money and changed the narrative to suit.  Artists do what they gotta do to get their projects funded.

 

Appears there was no connection between the sonnet's author and the statue designer, or his revised intent, which was to memoralize the strong bond between France and America, not immigrant love.  The sonnet's author was apparently involved with helping Jewish immigrants from Europe (her parents were Jewish immigrants to the US), so I reckon she drew some inspiration from there, which is seized upon by liberal sentiment.

 

Should a country, its people and govermment, be constrained in perpetuity by a statue and a sonnet?  Or should Immigration be policy (which it is), flexible  as conditions in the country change.  I certainly don't think the government should be constrained from adjusting policy because of a poem, or a statue. 

Disagree with just about all your sentiments. 

 

And nothing you say makes any difference to the point I was making about trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2019 at 8:13 AM, Cryingdick said:

 

That's funny. Just look at cable tv on any given day and look how many wealthy celebrities in fact have done just that.

You really are quite funny.   The wealthy have never had a problem in immigrating.   Most of the celebrities retain full citizenship in their home country and many do not get US citizenship.   They are content to have PR status.   The US allows 1.8 million legal immigrants.   How many celebrities immigrated last year, maybe 10?  15?   

 

I wonder if the 'Einstein' visa will still be available?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh the irony...

 

Melania Knavvs, immigrant, living in government-sponsored housing.

 

Not even going to ask about the cosmetic surgeries, and who paid for those?

 

Thank goodness she was able to get an "Einstein Visa".

 

(Yes, I know she actaully lives with her chain-migration parents in MD.)

 

 

I think the only change the Scooch wants is to add "...from Europe, preferrably Norway" to the end of the poem segment on the plaque.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/12/2019 at 3:02 PM, ezzra said:

Means testing is a tool used by many government and conglomerate to calculate one abilities to repay and service a loan and calculating pensions, so using the same tools to be used with people applying for a permanent stay in a country makes sense thus avoiding the situation whereby said newcomers will become a burden and overloads on the social and health system of that county...

The process already includes means testing as indicated in the article: 125% of the federal poverty level, or $12,490.

Granted it does not state it as as a "means test", but that is the very first hurdle you encounter when applying to sponsor a non-US citizen relative, e.g. your legal spouse, for a visa to come stay with you.

If you cannot demonstrate you have that you are allowed, under law, to seek a co-sponsor who will guarantee the short fall.

This "executive rule" is designed purely to keep non-white LEGAL applicants out of the USA. Emphasis because I have already seen a number of posts moaning about the number of illegal immigrants who are sucking up American tax payer money.

They are not the subject. Legal immigrants are, such as my wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a simple paint/color chart from Home Depot would save some money, and make it a lot easier? Stephen Miller could whip these up in a jiffy.

 

Oh, and also buy a condo from Kushner Properties (definitely not one in Baltimore though).

 

 

maxresdefault.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

I have already seen a number of posts moaning about the number of illegal immigrants who are sucking up American tax payer money.

 

Un-documented immigrants, in addition to working crappy jobs at trump properties, contribute some $13 BILLION annually to Social Security. (Since they use employer-generated fake SS #'s they can NEVER, EVER draw on this contribution.)

 

Two words...Thank You.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Un-documented immigrants, in addition to working crappy jobs at trump properties, contribute some $13 BILLION annually to Social Security. (Since they use employer-generated fake SS #'s they can NEVER, EVER draw on this contribution.)

 

Two words...Thank You.

Of course, if illegals are given an amnesty, which is what their enablers in congress are demanding, then they would get social security. That provision has been in every amnesty plan put forward in the last two decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Of course, if illegals are given an amnesty, which is what their enablers in congress are demanding, then they would get social security. That provision has been in every amnesty plan put forward in the last two decades.

No an amnesty does not necessarily give anything other than the right to remain in the US and a pathway to citizenship.   You are still not eligible for most programs.   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Credo said:

No an amnesty does not necessarily give anything other than the right to remain in the US and a pathway to citizenship.   You are still not eligible for most programs.   

 

 

Amnesty provisions in the past did exactly that. And just how do you propose people who being given amnesty and the right to work and live in the US be then denied social security? Are you saying they will be disqualified from receiving ss benefits, which is what my post referred to? Well, they won't and they can't be. They'll get the money and bust the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...