Trump Administration Considers Penalizing Immigrants for Using Gov. Benefits

[Scheme]

Come to America, contribute nothing, and take all the benefits

How is that hard to be against?

You forget that most of the people that are against this are weak, pathetic, beta, cucks.

 

[Renard]

The "right" is a large, heterogeneous group. I've never heard of penalizing legal immigrants being any kind of popular opinion. Trump's a wildcard.

 

[Trotsky]

Why would you accept immigrants who are instantly gonna be a burden to your system?

We need more people paying welfare, not receiving it

Because subsidizing the transition into the country and allowing for upward mobility (instead of just plunging them into static entry level positions to make ends meet) allows for greater productivity down the line. As in the example that I gave about Bosnians in St. Louis, after being largely government dependent upon arrival, becoming incredibly productive and beneficial for society.

Also, because the expansiveness of this definition of "public charge" would apply to (literally) about half of the country.

Derp.

 

[panamaican]

Almost all policies are made this way. Obama didnt want health care overhaul without it...and we wound up with far reaching changes due to that one law, it had a ripple effect and for the worse and that was with GOOD intentions.

Not true on many fronts.

I already said it wouldnt have because she would have refused help holy hell you are focusing so narrowly you are missing what is being said and why...you are the one that jumped in with your ass on fire trying to make it sound like I said immigrants have it easier today than 100 years ago which I never did and you just could not let go of it. This is why we are where we are, you required so much more information which was a mistake on my part since I should have realized that if you could not accept the information given in my first post in context, no amount more was going to change anything...you are in full tilt defense mode and are blocking even people on the same side just for deviating slightly on the narrative.

I think you're confusing me with your imagination. I never said anything about immigrants having it better r worse. I said that it's a stupid policy and just because it's different doesn't make it better. THen I said that you evaluate policy on what it does in the existing system.

You havne't provided any "information". I have been asking for information and you keep dodging the questions.

What issues does this force. What movement does this address?

Your repeated failure to answer direct questions doesn't disappear just because you randomly insert stories about your mom.

Of course you dont, you have been so hyper-focused on crushing the deviance (how dare he point out Ellis Island, its not as bad as blah blah horseshit) that you dont know what is being said, congrats. Remove knee from face, step back, and re-read...you didnt see me challenge your mention your parents having stories of issues did you? Nope. Cause im not hyper-focused and refuting that actually means nothing as the experiences of ALL immigrants matters, including those of 100+ years ago. Its all relevant to today and this topic, just like my reason for agreeing with this change and how such services should only be for citizens...due to everyone before the recent changes having to go without also.

I said that the issue with Ellis Island is that Ellis Island refers to people seeking entry to the country. The policy under consideration refers to people who already were granted admission. Keep up and if you can't go back and re-read what I stated in response to your Ellis Island post.

I inquired deeper into your story about your mom because it struck me as irrelevant to this policy. I asked you to explain the relevance. Maybe you should slow down and think a little deeper here. I suspect that you have confused what I have been saying with what someone else has been saying.

Take some time - go back and read my posts. Then you'll see that you've failed to address 90% of my direct questions to you.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Thanks. So in 1909 for “a few months” it says “immigrants were required to have railroad tickets to their final destinations and at least the equivalent of 25 dollars.” Never mind that at the same time the Chinese Exclusion Acts were in effect... Apparently you think the cost of immigrating now is less than a railroad ticket and $25. Everything else is vague but the fact remains only 2% were turned away according to your source..

1. learn to read.
2. "In 1909, that rule changed amid growing anti-immigrantion sentiment in the United States. For a short time, immigrants were required to have railroad tickets to their final destinations and at least the equivalent of 25 dollars."
3. Your point, is based on the above, the first of the changes to WHAT I FREAKING POSTED. THAT RULE CHANGED...try talking about THAT RULE instead.
4. $25 in 1909 is = to $2,000 today back at a time when the poverty rates worldwide were INSANE compared to today.
5. in 1909 about 68% of the WORLD lived in ABSOLUTE poverty compared to under 25% today unless you take the world bank data which places it under 10%!.
6. One can come to America today with zero in their pocket, claim asylum, get in and be right on welfare, placed in a government subsidized complex, have health-care and so much more. The only thing worse for immigrants today is the road to citizenship is far longer with more hoops, and THAT needs to be changed.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

You havne't provided any "information". I have been asking for information and you keep dodging the questions.

Take some time - go back and read my posts. Then you'll see that you've failed to address 90% of my direct questions to you.

I dont have time for troll games...my posts are 3x longer than yours, ive given links and provided pictures but I am giving no information all why you ask why im giving it AND denying its there at the same time. Also loved how I gave an actual example with Obamacare and you just give a dismissal.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Because subsidizing the transition into the country and allowing for upward mobility (instead of just plunging them into static entry level positions to make ends meet) allows for greater productivity down the line. As in the example that I gave about Bosnians in St. Louis, after being largely government dependent upon arrival, becoming incredibly productive and beneficial for society.

Also, because the expansiveness of this definition of "public charge" would apply to (literally) about half of the country.

Derp.

Why so adversarial with every single post? Ease up dude. Anyways, you made a good point. I would rather welfare level immigrants were kept to a minimum. But they shouldn't be punished after being accepted I agree. Just don't accept them to begin with would be a better solution to me

 

[Tiny]

Not gonna lie, the headline gave me wood.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Because subsidizing the transition into the country and allowing for upward mobility (instead of just plunging them into static entry level positions to make ends meet) allows for greater productivity down the line. As in the example that I gave about Bosnians in St. Louis, after being largely government dependent upon arrival, becoming incredibly productive and beneficial for society.

Also, because the expansiveness of this definition of "public charge" would apply to (literally) about half of the country.

Derp.

Yet history proves the exact opposite. It was not until the 1960s that there was any subsidies for immigrants yet everyone that came before them did great and far too many after have not.

They are called "Safety-nets" for a reason....they are only supposed to catch you if you fall. immigrants dont even need to stumble accept across the boarder to get on them.

 

[panamaican]

I dont have time for troll games...my posts are 3x longer than yours, ive given links and provided pictures but I am giving no information all why you ask why im giving it AND denying its there at the same time. Also loved how I gave an actual example with Obamacare and you just give a dismissal.

You mean don't have to time answer direct questions that force you to explain your rhetoric. And again - you seem to have confused me with someone else. Your example with Obamacare literally did not make any sense. Not figuratively, literally. It wasn't close to the historical elements surrounding the passage of that law and it certainly wasn't close to an example of an "extreme being used to force change".

I didn't dismiss it. I analyzed and it didn't make any sense.

 

[ScottE]

You mean don't have to time answer direct questions that force you to explain your rhetoric. And again - you seem to have confused me with someone else. Your example with Obamacare literally did not make any sense. Not figuratively, literally. It wasn't close to the historical elements surrounding the passage of that law and it certainly wasn't close to an example of an "extreme being used to force change".

I didn't dismiss it. I analyzed and it didn't make any sense.

He's tilting at windmills.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

You mean don't have to time answer direct questions that force you to explain your rhetoric.

You mean like giving direct examples that are just going to be dismissed with a "not even remotely true" and no examples. Your troll game is boring, at least you made it seem like you were legit for more than 4 posts so I guess I can give you that. Congrats, much was accomplished by it at least on my end since I was talking with someone on the phone about it and he dropped the "italians were subjected to Jim Crow in the south" bomb on me which led me to looking it up and finding it true.

 

[panamaican]

You mean like giving direct examples that are just going to be dismissed with a "not even remotely true" and no examples. Your troll game is boring, at least you made it seem like you were legit for more than 4 posts so I guess I can give you that. Congrats, much was accomplished by it.

What examples are needed when the statement "not even remotely true" is present. Your statement was not even remotely true. I can't give you an example of something that you made up and used incorrectly. It was so egregiously incorrect that I'd have to spend thousands of words explaining the policy and legislative history behind a piece of legislation. And it would be pointless because it would still have nothing to do with the immigration policy that forms the basis for this thread.

I mean if you're going to reflect on your inability to structure an argument or back up rhetoric when pressed to do so then...you're welcome. I hope that this accomplishment leads to better things from you.

 

[Trotsky]

Yet history proves the exact opposite. It was not until the 1960s that there was any subsidies for immigrants yet everyone that came before them did great and far too many after have not.

They are called "Safety-nets" for a reason....they are only supposed to catch you if you fall. immigrants dont even need to stumble accept across the boarder to get on them.

LOL!

(a) "Yet everyone [all immigrants before 1960] did great" is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. No, not all of them did great: they were overwhelmingly in poverty, along with 60% of the rest of the population. They lived shitty lives and died young, yet the marginal few who beat out the rest came out on the other side to provide justification for moronic arguments like yours.

(b) "Far too many after have not" is relative, and you would be saying it even if data showed that 99.999% of them did exceptionally well.

(c) I didn't use the term "safety-nets" and, regardless of nomenclature, public programs have always served functions of (i) allowing for productivity that would otherwise be lost if solely insufficient to provide for the worker, (ii) promoting upward mobility, (iii) stabilizing market demand, and (iv) investing in the citizenry. They are only conceptualized they way you describe by persons who don't understand them.


But, beyond saying "history proves it," can you provide any actual data showing that entitlements or social programs hinder upward mobility or productivity? I've not yet seen someone who can.

Why so adversarial with every single post? Ease up dude. Anyways, you made a good point. I would rather welfare level immigrants were kept to a minimum. But they shouldn't be punished after being accepted I agree. Just don't accept them to begin with would be a better solution to me

I apologize. This topic, and the many spurious and oftentimes bad-intentioned arguments on it, get me hot under the collar.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

1. learn to read.
2. "In 1909, that rule changed amid growing anti-immigrantion sentiment in the United States. For a short time, immigrants were required to have railroad tickets to their final destinations and at least the equivalent of 25 dollars."
3. Your point, is based on the above, the first of the changes to WHAT I FREAKING POSTED. THAT RULE CHANGED...try talking about THAT RULE instead.
4. $25 in 1909 is = to $2,000 today back at a time when the poverty rates worldwide were INSANE compared to today.
5. in 1909 about 68% of the WORLD lived in ABSOLUTE poverty compared to under 25% today unless you take the world bank data which places it under 10%!.
6. One can come to America today with zero in their pocket, claim asylum, get in and be right on welfare, placed in a government subsidized complex, have health-care and so much more. The only thing worse for immigrants today is the road to citizenship is far longer with more hoops, and THAT needs to be changed.

Perhaps you should take your own advice. I addressed "THAT RULE" when I mentioned the vague bullshit in that article. "THAT RULE" according to your article is, "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. In 1909, that rule changed amid growing anti-immigrantion (sic) sentiment in the United States. For a short time, immigrants were required to have railroad tickets to their final destinations and at least the equivalent of 25 dollars." So "THAT RULE" is worse than the $25 dollars? It doesn't seem like it was since anti-immigrant sentiments are the ones that pushed for the $25 dollar requirement, which only lasted a few months. Lmao during the cut and paste I also noticed the typo in your unsourced article upon which your entire argument lies.

Anyway I've had enough of your trolling and derailing. If you have anything you'd like to add to the actual topic at hand go ahead. If you want to keep fighting for the white immigrants from over a century ago and how hard they had it compared to the Asians who were barred from coming you can take it back to Stormfront.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

LOL!

(a) "Yet everyone [all immigrants before 1960] did great" is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. No, not all of them did great: they were overwhelmingly in poverty, along with 60% of the rest of the population. They lived shitty lives and died young, yet the marginal few who beat out the rest came out on the other side to provide justification for moronic arguments like yours.

(b) "Far too many after have not" is relative, and you would be saying it even if data showed that 99.999% of them did exceptionally well.

(c) I didn't use the term "safety-nets" and, regardless of nomenclature, public programs have always served functions of (i) allowing for productivity that would otherwise be lost if solely insufficient to provide for the worker, (ii) promoting upward mobility, (iii) stabilizing market demand, and (iv) investing in the citizenry. They are only conceptualized they way you describe by persons who don't understand them.

But, beyond saying "history proves it," can you provide any actual data showing that entitlements or social programs hinder upward mobility or productivity? I've not yet seen someone who can.

I apologize. This topic, and the many spurious and oftentimes bad-intentioned arguments on it, get me hot under the collar.

Please provide proof of a mass exodus of people that immigrated to America pre 1960, out of it, due to over-whelming poverty because the last time I checked, overwhelming poverty is at an all time low in America today which means...they did do great over time otherwise America would be worse than it is.

Thanks for playing. Sorry if I come off snarky but I really dont deal with short-sighted weak arguments very well. Much like your pretending welfare dependency is not a thing.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=welfare+dependency&t=hi&ia=web

I mean, even leftist CNN is LAUGHING at you. https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/opinion/spalding-welfare-state-dependency/index.html

And even more so when you tag on welfare and upward mobility...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=does+welfare+hinder+upward+movement&t=hi&ia=web

which includes https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...term-help-and-long-term-poverty/#4103074932cd

I mean, only people like Milton Friedman have been saying this shit since the 1970s...compared to board warriors that say there is no data...since they dont know what they are talking about. Now you provide PROOF that there is no data which I am sure you can easily do since you will ignore all the links that proved you wrong.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

you can take it back to Stormfront.

And you just undermined your stance. I already talked about my mother suffering from the poor immigration laws of this country...do you think I am 100 years old and I was bringing up the laws she suffered from? Or are you just assuming I am white because I brought up old laws white people used on letting other white people into the country because you just needed a personal attack since your argument wasnt good enough? I have been providing links to more proof over the last 3 pages, all you got is a racism card.

Well, if you didnt want people to justify it, you shouldnt have asked.

 

[Falsedawn]

The "right" is a large, heterogeneous group. I've never heard of penalizing legal immigrants being any kind of popular opinion. Trump's a wildcard.

During the election, we literally had a large coalition of posters on this site and media talking heads insinuating that jus soli wasn't a valid basis for American citizenship.

You weren't paying attention.

 

[Trotsky]

Please provide proof of a mass exodus of people that immigrated to America pre 1960, out of it, due to over-whelming poverty because the last time I checked, overwhelming poverty is at an all time low in America today which means...they did do great over time otherwise America would be worse than it is.

Thanks for playing. Sorry if I come off snarky but I really dont deal with short-sighted weak arguments very well. Much like your pretending welfare dependency is not a thing.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=welfare+dependency&t=hi&ia=web

I mean, even leftist CNN is LAUGHING at you. https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/opinion/spalding-welfare-state-dependency/index.html

And even more so when you tag on welfare and upward mobility...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=does+welfare+hinder+upward+movement&t=hi&ia=web

which includes https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...term-help-and-long-term-poverty/#4103074932cd

I mean, only people like Milton Friedman have been saying this shit since the 1970s...compared to board warriors that say there is no data...since they dont know what they are talking about. Now you provide PROOF that there is no data which I am sure you can easily do since you will ignore all the links that proved you wrong.

We have a new candidate for dumbest poster of the year.

Please provide proof of a mass exodus of people that immigrated to America pre 1960, out of it, due to over-whelming poverty

This doesn't make any sense as worded.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and amend your request to a more coherent one: asking for proof that people emigrated out of America due to poverty. But I didn't claim that, although that would have been an intellectually equivalent rebuttal to your argument.

Instead, I said that not all immigrants immediately thrived due to their deplorable conditions and protections: in fact the great majority, as I said, remained economically stationary until a new generation of immigrants could fill the underclass. Most died in poverty, in the lowest wrung of our economy.

last time I checked, overwhelming poverty is at an all time low in America today which means...they did do great over time otherwise America would be worse than it is.

This is stupid on so many levels that I'm not sure where to start. But, to allow you to do some of your own work and not stunt your growth by doing it for you (see what I'm doing here?), I'll just post the graph that you posted earlier in this thread and see if you notice anything about the decline in poverty in the world and the birth of social democracy.

Isn't that strange how, worldwide, poverty declined most sharply after the creation of the social programs that you're deriding as keeping immigrants poor? Hmm, maybe it was different in the United States, though.

Whoops, nope, you're still a moron.

I mean, even leftist CNN is LAUGHING at you. https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/opinion/spalding-welfare-state-dependency/index.html

And even more so when you tag on welfare and upward mobility...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=does+welfare+hinder+upward+movement&t=hi&ia=web

which includes https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffre...term-help-and-long-term-poverty/#4103074932cd

I mean, only people like Milton Friedman have been saying this shit since the 1970s...compared to board warriors that say there is no data...since they dont know what they are talking about. Now you provide PROOF that there is no data which I am sure you can easily do since you will ignore all the links that proved you wrong.

LOL, so you google searched "welfare and upward mobility" and then just copy and pasted the links? Spectacular.

Anyways, you're annoying me, so I'll just use a previous post on the subject of welfare and its effect on worker participation and upward mobility.

I mean...you could just compare the social mobility and worker participation data across Western countries and see the clear correlation with welfare spending: from Latin America - to the United States - to the UK - to Germany - to Scandinavia, the correlation is clear.

But....sure. I'll sashay over to Google and dig some stuff up.


http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/action-needed-to-tackle-stalled-social-mobility.htm

https://books.google.com/books?id=5zaa84FFNLwC&lpg=PR11&ots=08ENJQ5wNS&dq=welfare spending and worker participation&lr&pg=PP1#v=snippet&q&f=false

How Welfare and Work Policies Affect Employment and Income: A Synthesis of Research

Preferences for Redistribution in the Land of Opportunities - Economic Bureau of Research

Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility

The case for government wage insurance to increase upward mobility - Brookings Institute (another Brookings piece on the effect of welfare entitlements, but with stress that it be conditional to ongoing employment: https://www.brookings.edu/research/welfare-and-the-economy/)

Downward redistribution of wealth through education and entitlements correlates with upward economic mobility at both the local and national level

 

[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.

And you just undermined your stance. I already talked about my mother suffering from the poor immigration laws of this country...do you think I am 100 years old and I was bringing up the laws she suffered from? Or are you just assuming I am white because I brought up old laws white people used on letting other white people into the country because you just needed a personal attack since your argument wasnt good enough? I have been providing links to more proof over the last 3 pages, all you got is a racism card.

Well, if you didnt want people to justify it, you shouldnt have asked.

Lol c'mon man that is your first post in this thread, you injected (in all caps no less) race into it. I'm obligated to give you shit for doing so. Also you absolutely have not at any point convinced me that immigrants had to do more to get through Ellis Island than they do now. Especially not white immigrants of the time, who had by far greater rights than non-whites. It's idiotic, besides the obvious fact that life in general was harder over a hundred years ago. Are you going to argue that being white in America in 1909 was harder than being non-white?

Edit: and NONE of this has anything to do with justifying the topic in the OP! lmao that's the craziest part, some anecdote of how things were a century ago is not justification or refutation of anything today. You've strictly been derailing with this line of thinking.