Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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. 

Edited by 55Jay
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know when I immigrated my wife 35 years ago she and her family were vetted good and proper I was looked at as well btw in my case it was worth it ! And she is still cuter than a bugs ear lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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.

Edited by Bill Miller
typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.   

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...