Trump Administration Considers Penalizing Immigrants for Using Gov. Benefits

[panamaican]

Yall should go read up why Ellis Island was nicknamed "The Isle of Tears"..."About 20 percent of the immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island were detained for one reason or another. Of this 20 percent, two percent were turned away for good.Immigrants had to pass many tests. In addition to medical and mental examinations, they also had to show they would not become a burden on society.

In order to do this, immigrants had to prove they had the skill or the strength to support themselves in America. They were questioned in detail about previous occupations and moral beliefs. Additionally, all immigrants had to show some amount of money to prove they were not destitute. How much money each immigrant was expected to have was left to the discretion of each inspector."

That is what WHITE immigrants had to go through...but its racist to do even less to non-whites.

Your write up applies to admission to the country, not post-admission revocation of status. They are substantially different.

An immigrant in perfectly good financial health gains admission. Works a job for 10 years and pays his taxes. His company goes out of business and he's laid off. He applies for government benefits while he looks for a replacement job. Now his legal status is in jeopardy.

That makes sense to you?

 

[Rematch]

Seems fair.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

So it's like how the DNC wants open borders so they can tally up more votes but in reverse?

No democratic politician is trying to implement open borders. The GOP had the choice of appealing to more groups of voters or try and disenfranchise the voters who don't vote for them. It's pretty obvious which choice they made.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Yall should go read up why Ellis Island was nicknamed "The Isle of Tears"..."About 20 percent of the immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island were detained for one reason or another. Of this 20 percent, two percent were turned away for good.Immigrants had to pass many tests. In addition to medical and mental examinations, they also had to show they would not become a burden on society.

In order to do this, immigrants had to prove they had the skill or the strength to support themselves in America. They were questioned in detail about previous occupations and moral beliefs. Additionally, all immigrants had to show some amount of money to prove they were not destitute. How much money each immigrant was expected to have was left to the discretion of each inspector."

That is what WHITE immigrants had to go through...but its racist to do even less to non-whites.

Are you serious? This is not less than that by far.

1) this will affect people who have already legally immigrated

2) the immigration process now is much more involved than then, it takes an average of 7 years to go from LPR status to full citizenship. If you don't have family living in the US this is what it takes to get a Green Card through employer sponsorship:

• If you are a recognized researcher or professor, a multinational executive or manager, or someone with extraordinary ability, you are generally in the first preference of employer-sponsored immigration.
• If you have a Ph.D. or Master’s degree and have exceptional skills in business, the arts, or sciences, you may qualify for a green card under the second preference.
• If you are a skilled worker or professional, you may qualify for immigration under third preference. This category also covers workers who require less than two years of experience, training, or education.

3) showing some amount of money is a lot easier than "may never need assistance" which is impossible to prove or disprove

4) 2% were turned away according to you, that's not exactly stringent, and only 20% were even detained for one reason or another. Now 100% are "detained" for one reason or another.

 

[Kindacrazy]

No democratic politician is trying to implement open borders. The GOP had the choice of appealing to more groups of voters or try and disenfranchise the voters who don't vote for them. It's pretty obvious which choice they made.

The democratic party pivoted from anti-immigration to pro immigration around 2000 in order to try and secure more votes. The democratic support for largely open borders is among the most obvious plays for votes in US history.

 

[Black Helicopters]

This is what happens when you assume anyone who has gotten food stamps is an unemployed leech. Now I would be in complete favor of deporting those that fall into that category but the number is smaller than you think.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Your write up applies to admission to the country, not post-admission revocation of status. They are substantially different.

An immigrant in perfectly good financial health gains admission. Works a job for 10 years and pays his taxes. His company goes out of business and he's laid off. He applies for government benefits while he looks a replacement job. Now his legal status is in jeopardy.

That makes sense to you?

Yes since it shouldnt take 10 years to become a citizen. That is yet another horrible change made in the last 80ish years that have caused the bullshit we are facing today...my mother, was pregnant and at the last minute my father who was a citizen decided that he wanted to get married in America with his family present and my mother could not get in for over a full YEAR...and my father was in the army on top of it.

That was long before I was born (I am the youngest)...

Just because I am for this, does not mean I am not for fixing the current fucked up laws causing issues.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Are you serious? This is not less than that by far. snip.

Current immigration laws are not the topic. If they were you would see me slamming them as I have been since I was a wee little lass.

I have no issues with banning anyone that is not a citizen from getting free tax payer dollars just as I would have no issues with a complete overhaul of obtaining citizenship and making it more streamlined and take a lot less time as long as the process is thorough with few cracks for people to slip in through.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

The democratic party pivoted from anti-immigration to pro immigration around 2000 in order to try and secure more votes. The democratic support for largely open borders is among the most obvious plays for votes in US history.

First, point to legislation that the democrats have proposed that open the borders wide open.

Second, the republican party hasn't really been anti-immigration until relatively recently, so if the democrats pivoted, so did the republicans.

Thirdly, accepting new immigrants doesn't guarantee you votes. They can still vote for whichever candidates they prefer.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

thats pretty fucking disgusting

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Current immigration laws are not the topic. If they were you would see me slamming them as I have been since I was a wee little lass.

I have no issues with banning anyone that is not a citizen from getting free tax payer dollars just as I would have no issues with a complete overhaul of obtaining citizenship and making it more streamlined and take a lot less time as long as the process is thorough with few cracks for people to slip in through.

You made it the topic, when you compared the current situation to Ellis Island immigration to make some false claims about how tough it was for WHITE (your emphasis) immigrants to get in in the past compared to today's immigrants. You even had to edit out all of my post which refuted your ridiculous claim.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

You made it the topic, when you compared the current situation to Ellis Island immigration to make some false claims about how tough it was for WHITE (your emphasis) immigrants to get in in the past compared to today's immigrants. You even had to edit out all of my post which refuted your ridiculous claim.

Incorrect. They do not turn back anyone for not having money today, that was ended almost a full 100 years ago. You can come in without a DIME and go right onto welfare and in fact, they will give you the paperwork for it right at the crossing. I know, my friend 2 doors down is married to a woman that had them handed to her when she crossed. back then, YOU succeeded or failed on your own with zero help from the government where as today you get through school and college without even paying a dime from special loans just for immigrants and schools desperate to have better diversity numbers jumping through hoops to get them in.

And none of your points touched on what I replied, which is why I sniped them and I cleared your claim with it being more difficult in terms of LENGTH with my reply of current laws DO need to change which is a different topic.

The so called worst aspects of immigration according to most people is being, omg, separated from family which also happened on Ellis Island and dont get me started on your 1 & 3 which are baseless assumptions on your part, a thing I did not want to get into because it will just derail the topic. Leave it be, drop your vitriol as you are targeting the wrong person as my reply to panamaican showed...

 

[panamaican]

Yes since it shouldnt take 10 years to become a citizen. That is yet another horrible change made in the last 80ish years that have caused the bullshit we are facing today...my mother, was pregnant and at the last minute my father who was a citizen decided that he wanted to get married in America with his family present and my mother could not get in for over a full YEAR...and my father was in the army on top of it.

That was long before I was born (I am the youngest)...

Just because I am for this, does not mean I am not for fixing the current fucked up laws causing issues.

But those are really 2 separate issues and shouldn't be evaluated concurrently. Fixing the amount of time to become a citizen is great and if it's done then maybe this law becomes less bad. But nothing in what's out there says that they're going to fix the fucked up laws. So this has to be evaluated in the context of the system we have, not the context of the system we wish we had.

And under this current system, there's no fast tracking to citizenship to offset the effects of well performing legal immigrants suddenly finding their status in jeopardy because of a life event beyond their control.

I could make arguments in favor of this policy but I don't think they outweigh the cons.

 

[lifelessheap]

This isn't even going to be done legislatively. I've been against illegal immigration for a very long time and think it needs to cracked down on (although I think a wall isn't a great idea). But it's been very obvious under this administration that many of these people don't have an issue with illegal immigrants. They have an issue with all immigrants that don't come from Western Europe. It's left me in a position where I'm frequently arguing against certain types of immigration regulation because it's a short road from application against illegals to application against legals.

This would punish legal immigrants for using the system that are legally a part of. The inclusion of healthcare in the list of things that could jeopardize your immigration status is insane. The ACA provides healthcare subsidies for families of 4 making over $90k.

That's brutal. A immigrant and a citizen making almost $100k/yr with 2 kids would qualify for a subsidy. Then if they use that subsidy, the immigrant spouse would be at risk of losing his/her legal status. So, the family basically has to choose between the healthcare subsidy that the government says they're legally entitled to or having their family broken up.

It's unconscionable.

If they are making 100K can't they buy their own insurance?

 

[Kindacrazy]

First, point to legislation that the democrats have proposed that open the borders wide open.

Second, the republican party hasn't really been anti-immigration until relatively recently, so if the democrats pivoted, so did the republicans.

Thirdly, accepting new immigrants doesn't guarantee you votes. They can still vote for whichever candidates they prefer.

Lets see, they opposed the wall, they have asked for a path to citizenship for illegals currently in the US, they have started to lobby for the destruction of ICE. This is since Trump took over. Democrats have pandered to immigrants and would be immigrants for some time now.

The Republicans are the same pieces of shit they always have been. The Republican party wants illegals as slave labor in order to drive down wages. Don't mistake Trump and his fans for rank and file Republicans.

New immigrants will overwhelmingly vote for the party that brings them in and the party that will allow them to chain in their family. This effect lasts generations and the Democrats see the world as generally more progressive leaning then conservative (they are very wrong in this).

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

But those are really 2 separate issues and shouldn't be evaluated concurrently. Fixing the amount of time to become a citizen is great and if it's done then maybe this law becomes less bad. But nothing in what's out there says that they're going to fix the fucked up laws. So this has to be evaluated in the context of the system we have, not the context of the system we wish we had.

And under this current system, there's no fast tracking to citizenship to offset the effects of well performing legal immigrants suddenly finding their status in jeopardy because of a life event beyond their control.

I could make arguments in favor of this policy but I don't think they outweigh the cons.

Yet I really do wonder is if it is a way to make it what we want...

We have been doing the same exact thing for so many years and nothing getting fixed. Maybe what we need is laws like this to FORCE the issue. As is, both Democrats and Republicans are useless in actually fixing the laws while being really good at playing their games which include pitting citizens against each other.

Trump may have an R by his name but he is no Republican and has done nothing BUT shake up the pot that is named "normal politics". Like the man or hate him, he WAS elected by those sick of the system on BOTH sides...this is actually the perfect time to fix the mess of immigration laws and something like this will bring that to the forefront.

 

[Rod1]

Im only against illegal immigration is basically Im only against non-white immigration.

 

[panamaican]

If they are making 100K can't they buy their own insurance?

The ACA sets the subsidy amount. The family would be buying their own insurance, the ACA provides a small subsidy on the premiums (based on income and cost of the plan selected). So instead of paying 100% of the premium, the family pays 85%. But they're paying it to the private insurer.

And you're probably wondering why they're buying their own insurance if they make $100k? Self-employed so there's no company insurance plan. One of the benefits of the ACA was that it made it affordable for self-employed Americans to buy health insurance. Prior to, you needed a decent number of employees before you could get the lower group rates for an employer.

Which is why my post said the family is forced to choose between the insurance subsidy that they qualify for (remember it's 4 people and only one is an immigrant and that one might be the primary breadwinner) and having their family potentially broken up.

The 3 people who are citizens will forego something that they, as American citizens, are legally entitled to in order to prevent a negative action against the 4th member of the family.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Yall should go read up why Ellis Island was nicknamed "The Isle of Tears"..."About 20 percent of the immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island were detained for one reason or another. Of this 20 percent, two percent were turned away for good.Immigrants had to pass many tests. In addition to medical and mental examinations, they also had to show they would not become a burden on society.

In order to do this, immigrants had to prove they had the skill or the strength to support themselves in America. They were questioned in detail about previous occupations and moral beliefs. Additionally, all immigrants had to show some amount of money to prove they were not destitute. How much money each immigrant was expected to have was left to the discretion of each inspector."

That is what WHITE immigrants had to go through...but its racist to do even less to non-whites.

Incorrect. They do not turn back anyone for not having money today, that was ended almost a full 100 years ago. You can come in without a DIME and go right onto welfare and in fact, they will give you the paperwork for it right at the crossing. I know, my friend 2 doors down is married to a woman that had them handed to her when she crossed. back then, YOU succeeded or failed on your own with zero help from the government where as today you get through school and college without even paying a dime from special loans just for immigrants and schools desperate to have better diversity numbers jumping through hoops to get them in.

And none of your points touched on what I replied, which is why I sniped them and I cleared your claim with it being more difficult in terms of LENGTH with my reply of current laws DO need to change which is a different topic.

The so called worst aspects of immigration according to most people is being, omg, separated from family which also happened on Ellis Island and dont get me started on your 1 & 3 which are baseless assumptions on your part, a thing I did not want to get into because it will just derail the topic. Leave it be, drop your vitriol as you are targeting the wrong person as my reply to panamaican showed...

You claimed that what immigrants had to go through at Ellis Island was more than today. I simply refuted that. No vitriol, but it's simply a baseless claim.

If you aren't a refugee or relative of a US citizen you have to be employed in the US to apply for Permanent Residence status or "win" the green card lottery. I would say employment in a US company is just as good as "having money" whatever that standard is. Do you know which one applies to your friend's wife? Do you think refugees should have to "have money" to get Permanent Resident status?

 

[ScottE]

Lets see, they opposed the wall, they have asked for a path to citizenship for illegals currently in the US, they have started to lobby for the destruction of ICE. This is since Trump took over. Democrats have pandered to immigrants and would be immigrants for some time now.

The Republicans are the same pieces of shit they always have been. The Republican party wants illegals as slave labor in order to drive down wages. Don't mistake Trump and his fans for rank and file Republicans.

New immigrants will overwhelmingly vote for the party that brings them in and the party that will allow them to chain in their family. This effect lasts generations and the Democrats see the world as generally more progressive leaning then conservative (they are very wrong in this).

You realize ICE was a Bush era creation and that prior to its existence we did not have open borders right? ICE as an institution is not neccessary to secure our borders.