Trump Administration Rule Would Penalize Immigrants For Needing Benefits

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Bhadhidar

Do you really think the US can hold every refugee in the world?

I certainly think it could do a better job of trying.

Maybe we could do a better job of trying to not make it necessary for people to flee the country they were born in? If the US attempts to make policies that attempt to change the governments of other countries, people start complaining about imperialism. Well, yeah. If every refugee in the world seems to want to live in the US, why not make their own country more like the US so they won't have a problem with staying there? What's wrong with building the empire everyone wants to live in and getting rid of #ty, tyrannical governments that people have to run from?

I mean, obviously, the US isn't really what it's cracked up to be but people seem to think it is and many of the places they flee from are even worse. If they're going to run away from their own country because it sucks there and come here and refuse to even abide by the most basic immigration standards, we kind of have a right to be concerned about what is going on in these countries that makes them such #ty places to live that people literally run away to another country that doesn't even want them.

So what is wrong with toppling the government of a country that's ran by a dictator, for example? When the US does this, the left goes crazy. When the US refuses to allow immigrants from countries that are ran by dictators (and/or governments that just generally suck), the left goes crazy. They went berserk over Vietnam because lefties are communists and making war against a communist country is a crime against humanity in their book. Well, I don't hear about any refugees from the US running off to Vietnam or Cuba or China or North Korea. They might run off to somewhere like Norway if Norway would have them. But generally, Norway doesn't want you if you don't have an in demand skill, money in the bank and money on the way. It seems that socialists actually value money as much as capitalists. They seem to not be able to make their countries run on love and warm fuzzies. Norway might be a nice place to live but it isn't free. That's for sure. And they don't want freeloaders.

The people who are upset about strict immigration policies in the US are the same types of people who were nothing but thrilled when the communists defeated our military in Vietnam. And they are the same people who treated Vietnam veterans like # when they came back home.

a reply to: JAGStorm

This is much more insidious than penalties. This is the next step before larger internment camps.

If you get benefits, you lose legal status. But in order to get a job and make money, you need legal status, which you won't be given. And if you lose legal status, you can now be rounded up in the raids that have already started and will expand.

The raids that started with gang members and so on will soon expand to picking up anyone with an illegal status, regardless of age or gender or circumstances.

And the water in the pot gets hotter.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: JAGStorm

So if a student comes here for an internship or school on a Visa they're also expected to support themselves? Yikes... rich people only I guess.

Ummmmm yeah. Why should they get a free ride, my kids which are US citizens didn’t. Besides the subject is about immigration not student visas. In order to obtain a F-1 Student Visa you must have funds to be self supportive and maintain residence in another country that you don’t wish to give up. This has absolutely nothing to do with immigration or the OP.

a reply to: Duderino

Way to overreact. This is doing nothing but following a decades old law. The government is entitled to repayment under the contact the Immigrant signed. There are many tests for becoming a Perm Res and this is just one of them.

The law concerning the affidavit of support is found in Sections 212(a)(4) and 213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The provisions are codified in Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 8 CFR 213a.

If an immigrant you sponsored receives any means-tested public benefits, you are responsible for repaying the cost of those benefits to the agency that provided them. If you do not repay the debt, the agency or the immigrant can sue you in court to get the money owed. Any joint sponsors and household members who  allowed the sponsor to combine their income with the sponsor’s income to meet the minimum income requirements are also legally responsible for financially supporting the sponsored immigrant. In fact, any joint sponsor and household member is jointly or severally liable with the petitioning sponsor, meaning that the joint sponsor and household member are independently liable for the full extent of the reimbursement obligation and can be sued in court or be asked to pay the money owed, even if the petitioning sponsor is not sued or asked for money.

a reply to: Duderino

Even "IF" what you said is true the people being rounded up are here "illegally."

a reply to: Duderino

People have been migrating here for decades with no issue. The only ones having issues are illegal immigrants. Something you and many other leftists can't seem to differentiate from legal immigrants.

As soon as you figure out the difference between a legal and illegal immigrant, many of your questions and concerns will go away.

I'd be willing to bet the main concern for legal immigrants is how the illegals are clogging up the system.

a reply to: mtnshredder

They arent getting a free ride. Where did I say that? Talk about hysteria here.

If they have a Visa or education scholarship or hmmm paid for the education. They cant work obviously how else they going to study?
Like I said, rich folk only.

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: incoserv
...How many of you will say that the Mexican government is penalizing me?
:

So far, nobody.

I figured as much.

Yep, still nobody ...

I agree, if you come to this country (I would prefer legally) and can support yourself and your family I have no problem with you as long as your paying your taxes and staying out of trouble. The United States basically had open borders back in the day and didn't give assistance to immigrants and we flourished as a country because if it. People who come here with a strong work ethic are good for this country.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: mtnshredder

They arent getting a free ride. Where did I say that? Talk about hysteria here.

If they have a Visa or education scholarship or hmmm paid for the education. They cant work obviously how else they going to study?
Like I said, rich folk only.

Lots of students work their way through college. International students here on a F-1 Visa can work on campus the first year and off campus in their field of study after a year. Financial assistance is available to international students with scholarships but there are strict guidelines to obtain it, easier if you’re from a developing country. But once again this has nothing to do with immigration which is the OP topic.

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Bhadhidar

Do you really think the US can hold every refugee in the world?

I certainly think it could do a better job of trying.

Remember Give me your Poor...etc.?

It’s written on a plaque, on a really cool statue in New York harbor. You might have learned it school.

Sorry, it does not say we will give government assistance. Do a better job of trying? Who do you think takes in more than anyone in the world? The US has 50 MILLION foreign born immigrants.

If the US took in 1 billion poor people tomorrow what do you think would happen to America, it would be destroyed. Your ignorance level is astounding. Do more. What country are you from?

a reply to: Duderino

My wife did it, how since you seem to suggest it's impossible. That's right, she didn't come here illegally.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I had a friend that came from Jamaica and he had to sign papers stating that he would never collect public benefits. It's something we used to do.

Now I don't mind immigrants coming into the US and working for a period of 5-10 years, paying taxes and whatnot, before being able to collect any sort of benefit.

I think that's reasonable.

We want immigrant, we just want quality immigrants that have something to add to our country. Why is that wrong?

So just one? you uneducated can't spell or proof read dingleberry.... So we could then expel you for not having anything worth adding to our country?

Are you a patriot? do you believe in the constitution or just the parts you like?

originally posted by: tinner07

We want immigrant, we just want quality immigrants that have something to add to our country. Why is that wrong?

So just one? you uneducated can't spell or proof read dingleberry.... So we could then expel you for not having anything worth adding to our country?

Are you a patriot? do you believe in the constitution or just the parts you like?

Ever heard of capitalization at the beginning of a sentence? He who lives in a glass house mustn't throw rocks!
I have found that when people pick on your spelling in a post, it is usually because they have little else to argue on.

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
a reply to: JAGStorm

Things are apparently taking a turn for the “more dangerous” in Hong Kong as we speak.

There is a fear that China could soon move in with its military to quell a growing movement among the citizens there to stem the mainland’s influence.

If China moves, in force, with force, against these protests and thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Hong Kongese are forced to flee their island, or face Chinese arrest and reprisals,

Should the US shut its border to them, as well?

Fair is fair, right?

No

Hong Kong people would be true political refugees, much more educated, highly unlikely to be on welfare, or criminals, people that CONTRIBUTE to America.

Not the case with mexican/central americans

Facts are Facts

Biggest "problem" the libtards have with Hong Kong people is that after decades of living under the Communists/Socialists, they are unlikely to vote Democrat....

a reply to: Bhadhidar

In the first place, the difference between “immigrant” and “asylum seeker” (political or otherwise) is, for all practical purposes, very much a matter of which administration is interpreting the law at any particular time.

No.

By it's very definition, "asylum" is a "political refugee." There can be no asylum without a political component. That's like saying a uniform does not have to be clothing.

US Code also specifically states what actions may and may not be taken by any administration when it comes to border security. If there is significant variation between administrations on how the border is handled, it is likely because at least one of those administrations is breaking the law.

Words mean things. They are not just sounds one tosses around hoping the hearer will understand what they were intended to mean. They have definitions.

Secondly, you seem to fail to understand that it not the well paid professionals who are fighting the HK police in the streets

No, you don't understand my point. The poverty rate in Hong Kong is at a high of 20%, while Guatemala poverty comes in at a rate of 59.3%. That means Hong Kong has, per capita, one third as many people in poverty as Guatemala. That, in turn, means that overall, people fleeing Hong Kong are one-third as likely to require government assistance as someone fleeing Guatemala.

You wouldn’t be suggesting that Asian refugees should only flee to other “Asian” countries would you?

Actually, where possible, I would suggest exactly that. They would be accepted quicker, could integrate with the population faster, and would be more familiar with the customs. That's not racist; it's common sense. Fleeing form oppression is not like looking for a new home online. You take what you can get, and try to get it as fast as you can.

That is also different from immigration. You need to understand that difference. Immigration is when someone chooses to come to the United States (or any other country) because they want to be a part of the United States. Asylum (or refugee) is when one comes to another country (like the United States) because they cannot go back to their country without dying. Invasion is when one comes to another country to take what that other country has.

This Executive Order is concerning invasion.

I did pose a question relating to how the US will morally reconcile its treatment of one group of people from one part of the world seeking the much the same protection as another group of people from a different part of the world may potentially seek in light if this regulation.

The two groups are not seeking the same protection. One, those from Central America, are invading. Their purpose is to take whatever they can from the United States. They do not abide by the laws of our country. They attempt to sneak in, and if caught are ready to lie about their status to claim that which they are not legally entitled to. The other, your fictional scenario of Hong Kong, would, by your own description of the hypothetical, be political refugees and therefore eligible for asylum.

That is why I "protest" (I guess in your language that means the same as making fun of your inability to understand the situation). It's to point out just how wrong you are on the most basic of levels.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Duderino
a reply to: JAGStorm

This is much more insidious than penalties. This is the next step before larger internment camps.

If you get benefits, you lose legal status. But in order to get a job and make money, you need legal status, which you won't be given. And if you lose legal status, you can now be rounded up in the raids that have already started and will expand.

The raids that started with gang members and so on will soon expand to picking up anyone with an illegal status, regardless of age or gender or circumstances.

And the water in the pot gets hotter.

Why shouldn't ALL illegal aliens be rounded up and deported?

a reply to: JAGStorm

Don't you Mean ..Illegal Foreign Nationals ? Since WHEN are they Somehow Eligible for Benefits from the United States Government Considering they are Not U.S. Citizens ? WE the Taxpayers in this Country WANT TO KNOW ......

originally posted by: Bhadhidar


If China moves, in force, with force, against these protests and thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Hong Kongese are forced to flee their island, or face Chinese arrest and reprisals,

Should the US shut its border to them, as well?

Fair is fair, right?

Is the US the only country on the planet that a "refuge" can go to? I think billions would come here if we have them a land bridge too. I'm sure 2 billion people in America wouldn't be bad...