Huh. Not according to the U.S. Government. https://www.uscis.gov/family/family-us-citizens Even then it is incredibly complicated and it takes years to work through visa limits and backlogs. Here is the crux of the issue:
He wasn't, but complaining about him being racist still doesn't change the fact that America shouldn't have to absorb the world's woes without any thought to our own self-determination? We can't discuss limiting the nature of some of our migration policies? Outside of your hatred for Trump, is there no bending for any of you on limiting migration to more merit-based policies, like Canada, and not the family based chain migration?
It's a little hard to take an argument for merit based immigration seriously when we now know* that Trump and a large portion of the Republican party have actually been using it as a euphemism for make America white again. A merit based system isn't inherently racist or xenophobic to my mind, but no one's made a great case for it either that I've seen. And Canada has entirely different history/context when it comes to race and xenophobia than America does. That matters. Trump doesn't even get basic policy right when discussing immigration i.e. he lies repeatedly about it. If there is a simple case to be made, why can't he or other republicans do it without all the other horseshit? A while back you posted something about democrats not wanting to change our immigration system because the current one kept a steady stream of democratic voters coming in. I disagree with that. But with the age of Trump, I think it is clear that the majority of republican animosity towards our current immigration system does not lay in economic concerns, but rather in racist, xenophobic, and nativist urges. If you want to make a case for changing to a merit based system, go right ahead. I'll listen. Your posts about it haven't really been rooted in fact but sensationalist phrases (dumping ground for the poor, endless illegals--even though illegal immigration is going down, absorbing the world's woe). Maybe it will be better for the country, but I'm wary that this is all just really about keeping The Other out. *I mean we've known from the Mexicans are all rapists bit, but whatever
What about the open border where the drugs and illegals come through? There is no control on that route. That's unlimited migration right there.
They absolutely do. I have shared this before from my days in Iraq. The work crew all would say to me I am going to America, they pay me to live there, I don't need to work. Separately, I suppose that should be expected when the Feds advertise SNAP benefits in foreign countries and detail that you need not admit that you are in America illegally when applying for the benefits. What does this mean? Are you saying that if we were to suddenly follow Canada's immigration model or pick another countries more stringent immigration model now, it would be racist because of the past?
Look, this is the internet, you shouldn't care what I say but based on all that you wrote, you have proven what I would have said by your own example. You had a hard upbringing but that didn't deter you in becoming something more. I don't think anyone has said poor is a character flaw. Entitlement is a character flaw. Entitlement isn't a character trait poor people can afford to have if they ever intend to be something more than they currently are. The more you give someone: whether it is welfare, credit, reputation, whatever that is not earned, the more entitled they become and the less likely they are to work for those things and others in the future. This is basic human psychology at work. So, in my mind, you can't fix this problem by giving people "stuff". The point I am trying to make and I believe others are as well is that we understand what hard work is and what it means. We also have seen entitlement and what it does and do not support it. To take this a step further, to be poor in America is not to be poor at all. 71% of the World's population live on $10 a day, 12% of that number live on less than $2 a day. That is poor; if you are poor in this country you still have it pretty good, it's all perspective.
I'm calling horseshit. This is like your refugees raising chickens in government provided apartments claims. Please post some proof of this government program to encourage illegal Iraqi immigration post 9/11. I'd bet you are conflating some things or are outright wrong about a lot of it. Either way, I know Iraqi illegal immigration doesn't come close to Mexican illegal immigration in terms of numbers and for what it's worth, none of the Mexican illegal immigrants I knew growing up were under any illusions about what the government would provide for them. And I've never applied, but I do know SNAP and other welfare programs require proof of citizenship. Your post is dubious at best. Maybe. I don't know enough about anyone elses systems. It was just a reminder that we're not starting with a clean slate. What we do is interpreted differently because we are a different country. For example, if we chose a model that somehow plummets the availability of visas to China relative to other nations, that comes in the shadow of the Chinese Exclusion Act. You're being hyperbolic and it's shit like this that leads me to believe you don't really think critically about the southern border. There is likely no way to lock down it down to the level of your liking without spending a gazillion dollars and fucking up international trade. And even then guess what we would still have? Drugs and illegal immigrants---because they will always find a way.
Im sorry but I just disagree that all decisions have to be decided through what our perceptions might be based on actions of the past. It's an easy way to shut down debate and go nowhere. Leading to a strong man destroyer like fucking Trump. Taking your example to another step. So if we decided we wanted to promote STEM degrees at home by limiting H1B visas and college benefits for foreigners, which would naturally limit Asians based on current demos (southern and eastern), we have to factor in an act from a 130 years ago that has no relationship to our current situation and needs whatsoever? Get out of here. My guess is, had the left compromised more with stricter enforcement of various laws we'd have never come to this point. I'd love to ferret out some articles and numbers to back up my point but, your response so far leads me to believe you'll dismiss anything with the same logic, we'll be perceived as racist thus, no. Looking at the drop in border crossing apprehensions, maybe a stricter enforcement policy would prevent more people from crossing the border in the first place, hence no need for a silly ass wall. You heard Hillary give lip service to tougher enforcement during the debates, again when the rubber meets the road, once Trump actually started a more diligent enforcement strategy it all became sob stories and shrieks of pure racism. Also if you don't think Democrats are factoring in the voting trends of illegal immigrants you are being as willfully naive as Trump supporters that believe he doesn't have a racist bone in his body.
Apparently the frogs our government turned gay now are able to exert mind control. There is no evidence of this anywhere. Please produce some credible source for this. The voter fraud commission has been disbanded because even the Republicans got some of the Trump-Kobach circle jerk cum in their eyes and decided they didn't like it. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/us/politics/trump-voter-fraud-commission.html
Im not claiming illegal immigrants are voting illegally. Im saying, democrats, superficially claim straight compassion when in reality they know once large groups of poor people are granted citizenship they can have a never-ending stream of solid supporters. You really believe if poor immigrants, legal or otherwise, supported right wing policies in just as comparably high numbers they'd be fighting tooth and nail to keep them?
You’re taking my point about Canada’s system way too far. You’re saying I’m going to sidestep so that you can sidestep. My basic point was I don’t want to commit to Canada’s system because I don’t even know Canada’s system. We are a different country with a different population, different needs, and a different past. But if I’m wrong about anything, prove me wrong. It shouldn’t be that hard. You’re assuming a lot about the left and immigration enforcement while conveniently sidestepping the most recent democrat president. I’d love to know what you make of Obama’s enforcement of immigration laws. I’d bet that the numbers surprise you. It certainly isn’t a case of “Democrats just open the borders without any kind of security.” I’d also love to hear more about illegal immigrant voting trends if you have the time.edit looks like you’ve addressed this.
Canada is just an easy example of a country that has much higher immigration standards in some regards and even mentioning applying some similar concepts is automatically met with calls of xenophobia, or at least calls of implicit racism. As far as Obama's immigration enforcement the particular metric I believe everyone cites is the number of illegals deported when caught at the border. It's not nothing, it's part of the process, but fairly superficial to the overall number of illegals already in the country and really only used as an easy talking point. Overall border deportations were higher than previous efforts but not down overall like I cited above. His overall policy, and the left's, also emphasizes sanctuary states, cities, towns, municipalities, villages, etc which flies in the face of enforcement and in the larger sense undermines the whole concept of having immigration laws in the first place.
Which is why I specifically said I didn’t think a merit based system was inherently xenophobic or racist. And yet here we are, and no one is providing a good argument for it. Why are you measuring Obama’s border security performance against the number of undocumented people already here? Besides, his administration deported something like 1.5 million people from the interior which was a huge increase from previous administrations. But now I’m not even sure what the fuck I’m arguing about anymore because the hairs have been split so many times. Y’all have a good weekend.
I didn't make a clear distinction in what I was talking about there. I was trying to say the following: 1. There is a pervasive opinion amonst third-worlders, from shit holes, that if they can make it to America, America will pay for them to live and they won't have to work. In the example I was using, it was from work crews in Iraq. I am not stating that we have an illegal immigrant problem from the Middle East, only that people in the shit holes view a visa (however they can come by it) as a golden ticket to free shit. In Iraq, they were all aiming for a refugee pass out of their little piece of hell. 2. The Feds exacerbate this problem by advertising the SNAP program outside of the U.S. Why would advertise your welfare outside of the U.S. unless you were implicitly promising people benefits when they arrive. 3. Finally, you are wrong about SNAP benefits. https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...ng-u-s-food-stamp-program-for-illegal-aliens/ There are very simple steps that can be taken against illegal aliens that will curb costs and help pay for the wall. The estimates are somewhere in the range of $21B for the wall right now. If we started taxing all foreign remittances and removed aliens from the welfare pool, a pool which leaks BILLIONS PER YEAR, we would have it paid for in no time at all. Will it stop all drugs and all illegal immigrants? Hell no. It will slow them down though on several fronts. Paying taxes on cash jobs, less benefits and stricter enforcement seem like a good start.
You asked about my thoughts on Obama's immigration policy. Again the most oft-quoted number Iver heard, not the only, was the border turn backs, which is not the only a facet of his or any immigration policy (it was just used as a simple talking point). I don't agree with his policy on sanctuary cities as it delegitimizes the whole concept of immigration law and their intended purpose in the first place and in my mind undermines the argument that he was somehow tougher on enforcement than previous administrations. His discretion of selectively enforcing policy, which he can do as chief executive, also makes not as tough on immigration issues than I agree with. I don't see Trump as a totalitarian racist for using this discretion differently. Sorry for keeping you, Im in agreement, lets enjoy the weekend.
I can’t help replying one last time I guess. No. I’m not wrong. Or rather you’re not right. Read that article closely. That is about SNAP benefits being provided to children who may be citizens themselves or not. Why use a right wing website when you can just look them up directly? https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/snap-policy-non-citizen-eligibility Anyway, I’m going to get back to real life this time I promise. Have a good weekend.
I don't think that any country has a universally adored immigration policy, Canada included. My take on it is that we should do something to help people who are less fortunate in the world, for sure. But that comes with some responsibilities on their part... kind of like a school scholarship. If you don't maintain the minimum requirements, then you're gone. Some of those responsibilities should be to learn the language, get a job, integrate into society, and give back to society in some way (volunteering, etc). We also need to be a bit selfish, and look after ourselves first and foremost. Immigration should not be done at the expense of our own. I also think that immigrants have to be set up to succeed. They have to be properly introduced to the local culture, and educated on what they have to do to fit in. I am not a proponent of other cultures showing up and then keeping their previous culture as their primary. You're here because your previous culture or environment sucks, and/or you see a better opportunity in the new place. What I find hilarious is that Elon Musk is from Africa... and so many people just see immigrants through their bigoted viewpoint, and don't realize that a shit-ton of immigrants are making the world a better place, and their own life better.
Hmm... Bannon has been subpoenaed by Meuller to appear in front of a Grand Jury. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/16/...on-mueller-russia-subpoena.html?smid=tw-share
And now for more fun.. The DoJ report that came out claiming 75% of people convicted of terror related charges in the United States since 2001 are foreign born conveniently left out a few things. Like domestic terrorism. And whether the people came to the US or were extradited to the US solely to face criminal charges. Probably just a mistake.