7 ms·

"Donald Trump and Paul Ryan plan to strip approximately 20 million people of health insurance, " No - they said they are going to repeal and replace Obamacare

"Donald Trump and Paul Ryan plan to strip approximately 20 million people of health insurance, " No - they said they are going to repeal and replace Obamacare with something else. That does not mean they are going to strip people of their health insurance. "Donald Trump is part of a movement to dismantle pluralism in the United States, including the marginalization of immigrants and their descendants" This is a lie. Trump has consistently supported all legal immigrants, and voiced concern against those entering the country illegally. Again - your position misrepresents reality and paints anyone who is against illegal immigration to be against all immigrants, and a 'racist' etc.. As a non-Trump supporter, you should easily be able to win someone like me over - but you can't when you mix in so much hyperbole. It's comments like this that basically made me stop supporting progressive causes about 10 years ago, even though in general, I do support a lot of it ... I never give them the benefit of the doubt anymore.

mjmsmith 10y ago
> No - they said they are going to repeal and replace Obamacare with something else. That does not mean they are going to strip people of their health insurance. The only "something else" that has been mentioned thus far is the utterly inadequate notion of savings accounts. If Donald Trump manages to produce the magical pony that provides affordable health care for individuals regardless of pre-existing conditions while not requiring an individual mandate or bankrupting the health insurance industry, then I'll believe he actually is a genius.
tptacek 10y ago
There are generations of families --- literally millions of people --- that are linked together through people who are in the US "illegally". People were brought here as children and have known no other life. People who were born in this country and are unassailably citizens, deserving of all the protections previous generations of Americans died on beaches to defend for them, whose parents were brought here illegally as children. Do not casually dismiss these people by appealing to "legal immigration". The Obama Administration had to fight hard to secure continued residency for some of these children, and Trump's 100 Day Plan includes a pledge to revoke that security. This is a real concern deserving your careful consideration. It's not a sound bite. You can disagree, but if you're disagreeing that we should be concerned about a pledge to rend families apart, you owe a more careful and honest articulation of your disagreement than you gave here.
- hueving 10y ago
  Why are you scare quoting "illegally"? They are here in violation of the law. If you don't believe in controlled immigration, just state that up front rather than trying to hide behind an appeal to emotion via stories of tearing families apart. Your argument seems to be either that long time violators of a law should gain immunity to the law; or that we should grant citizenship to anyone who enters the country. Which is it?
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > They are here in violation of the law. Serious question: which law?
    - hueving 10y ago
      You need a visa to be here if you're not a US citizen. https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/laws-and-regulations/us-visa-policy.html https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/law...
    - edblarney 10y ago
      "The illegal entry of non-nationals into the United States is a misdemeanor according to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits non-nationals from entering or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place which has not been designated by an immigration officer, and also prohibits non-nationals from eluding inspection by immigration officers" Even though it's nice to know the specifics, really, it's absurd. A nation will not exist unless in the 21st century unless it manages its borders reasonably.
      - sangnoir 10y ago
        Thanks - I probably read a headline somewhere that entering the US illegally is not a felony and did not consider that it could still be a crime - a misdemeanour as you said.
      - tptacek 10y ago
snowwrestler 10y ago
> Trump has consistently supported all legal immigrants Trump confirmed his own opposition to people of Mexican descent when he said judge Gonzalo Curiel had a conflict of interest. He said that Curiel, who is descended from legal Mexican immigrants, could not rule fairly on a Trump trial, because Trump wanted to build a wall on the Mexican border. Note that Trump did not claim that Curiel was an illegal immigrant, or that his predecessor were illegal immigrants. It was Mexican heritage generally that Trump claimed caused the conflict of interest. And Trump of course has repeatedly spoken in favor of banning all Muslims from coming into the country, even legal immigrants. These are just off the top of my head; there are many more examples. If you won't be convinced, that's on you.
- tempestn 10y ago
  I'm the furthest thing from a Trump supporter, but it is a significant leap to take his believe that a judge with Mexican heritage would be biased against him due to his anti-Mexican agenda, and turn that into an opposition of all people of Mexican descent. Trump has said some despicable things, but saying that a person of Mexican descent might be biased against him because he's basically a dick to Mexico seems reasonably logical. Now, claiming that that's grounds for the judge to recuse himself is quite a stretch, but I don't personally see it as racist. I also think that stretching to label questionable things as racist is counter-productive; it dilutes the meaning, and makes it more difficult to call out the extreme, blatant racism that's going elsewhere.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    American pluralism, which the GP post was talking about, is the belief that people of many backgrounds can come together as equals and build a society together. Trump's focus on the Mexican heritage of an American judge (who was born in Chicago, Illinois, USA BTW) is a textbook attack on that idea.
    - tempestn 10y ago
      I was responding specifically to this line: "Trump confirmed his own opposition to people of Mexican descent when he said judge Gonzalo Curiel had a conflict of interest." I don't believe that particular incident is strong evidence that Trump opposes people of Mexican descent in general. I can understand his belief that a person of Mexican descent would not like him. I don't like him myself, nor do I agree with any of his stated positions on immigration or immigrants. I expect that if my parents were from Mexico, I might feel even more strongly that way, which is essentially what he suggested. (Again, I don't agree that it constitutes a conflict of interest! Just that the idea that a person descended from Mexican immigrants would likely not be a fan of his is not unreasonable.)
sgdesign 10y ago
So if Trump's problem is only with illegal immigrants, I'm sure he and his supporters would be more than happy to relax immigration policy and regularize the illegal immigrants that are already in the U.S., thus solving the issue?
- fooker 10y ago
  Well, he seems to plan the J1 and the H1B Visas. So, he is seemingly against potential legal immigrants too..
  - nnd 10y ago
    H1B program is completely broken and is heavily abused by Indian bodyshops. US needs a skill-based migration system, like any other developed nation.
    - fooker 10y ago
      That would be awesome, if it was actually possible. The reason it is not done is that suddenly it would become much more difficult for Americans to get high paying jobs. H1B's lottery system is infuriating for those who go through it, but it is quite difficult to exploit deterministically. Who would you prefer coming to the US? 50000 semiskilled workers from TCS/Infosys/etc, or 50000 extremely talented engineers that will be no-brainer hires for any company every year?
- hueving 10y ago
  If someone steals money from you, you don't gift it to them to stop them from being a thief. The illegal immigrants that are here should have to go through the same process as the rest of us immigrants. Otherwise it's just moral hazard disincentivizing immigrants from following the legal process.
  - carapace 10y ago
    I was talking with a Chinese coworker who had the same objection: He had gone through the arduous proper channels to immigrate, and wondered why the folks who came here illegally should be granted special favor. It seems unfair to him. I pointed out that many of the people here now as "illegal immigrants" are an indispensable part of our society and economy. They are de facto citizens, denied the full benefits of citizenship. We can't throw them out because our economy would tank. The options are to leave them in a twilight class or legitimize them. I definitely think that people coming here should do so legally. I'm not sure what to do about "the Mexican Problem" (to describe it in 18th century terms.)

mjmsmith 10y ago

> No - they said they are going to repeal and replace Obamacare with something else. That does not mean they are going to strip people of their health insurance. The only "something else" that has been mentioned thus far is the utterly inadequate notion of savings accounts. If Donald Trump manages to produce the magical pony that provides affordable health care for individuals regardless of pre-existing conditions while not requiring an individual mandate or bankrupting the health insurance industry, then I'll believe he actually is a genius.

tptacek 10y ago

There are generations of families --- literally millions of people --- that are linked together through people who are in the US "illegally". People were brought here as children and have known no other life. People who were born in this country and are unassailably citizens, deserving of all the protections previous generations of Americans died on beaches to defend for them, whose parents were brought here illegally as children. Do not casually dismiss these people by appealing to "legal immigration". The Obama Administration had to fight hard to secure continued residency for some of these children, and Trump's 100 Day Plan includes a pledge to revoke that security. This is a real concern deserving your careful consideration. It's not a sound bite. You can disagree, but if you're disagreeing that we should be concerned about a pledge to rend families apart, you owe a more careful and honest articulation of your disagreement than you gave here.

hueving 10y ago
Why are you scare quoting "illegally"? They are here in violation of the law. If you don't believe in controlled immigration, just state that up front rather than trying to hide behind an appeal to emotion via stories of tearing families apart. Your argument seems to be either that long time violators of a law should gain immunity to the law; or that we should grant citizenship to anyone who enters the country. Which is it?
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > They are here in violation of the law. Serious question: which law?
  - hueving 10y ago
    You need a visa to be here if you're not a US citizen. https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/laws-and-regulations/us-visa-policy.html https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/law...
  - edblarney 10y ago
    "The illegal entry of non-nationals into the United States is a misdemeanor according to the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits non-nationals from entering or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place which has not been designated by an immigration officer, and also prohibits non-nationals from eluding inspection by immigration officers" Even though it's nice to know the specifics, really, it's absurd. A nation will not exist unless in the 21st century unless it manages its borders reasonably.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      Thanks - I probably read a headline somewhere that entering the US illegally is not a felony and did not consider that it could still be a crime - a misdemeanour as you said.
    - tptacek 10y ago

snowwrestler 10y ago

> Trump has consistently supported all legal immigrants Trump confirmed his own opposition to people of Mexican descent when he said judge Gonzalo Curiel had a conflict of interest. He said that Curiel, who is descended from legal Mexican immigrants, could not rule fairly on a Trump trial, because Trump wanted to build a wall on the Mexican border. Note that Trump did not claim that Curiel was an illegal immigrant, or that his predecessor were illegal immigrants. It was Mexican heritage generally that Trump claimed caused the conflict of interest. And Trump of course has repeatedly spoken in favor of banning all Muslims from coming into the country, even legal immigrants. These are just off the top of my head; there are many more examples. If you won't be convinced, that's on you.

tempestn 10y ago
I'm the furthest thing from a Trump supporter, but it is a significant leap to take his believe that a judge with Mexican heritage would be biased against him due to his anti-Mexican agenda, and turn that into an opposition of all people of Mexican descent. Trump has said some despicable things, but saying that a person of Mexican descent might be biased against him because he's basically a dick to Mexico seems reasonably logical. Now, claiming that that's grounds for the judge to recuse himself is quite a stretch, but I don't personally see it as racist. I also think that stretching to label questionable things as racist is counter-productive; it dilutes the meaning, and makes it more difficult to call out the extreme, blatant racism that's going elsewhere.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  American pluralism, which the GP post was talking about, is the belief that people of many backgrounds can come together as equals and build a society together. Trump's focus on the Mexican heritage of an American judge (who was born in Chicago, Illinois, USA BTW) is a textbook attack on that idea.
  - tempestn 10y ago
    I was responding specifically to this line: "Trump confirmed his own opposition to people of Mexican descent when he said judge Gonzalo Curiel had a conflict of interest." I don't believe that particular incident is strong evidence that Trump opposes people of Mexican descent in general. I can understand his belief that a person of Mexican descent would not like him. I don't like him myself, nor do I agree with any of his stated positions on immigration or immigrants. I expect that if my parents were from Mexico, I might feel even more strongly that way, which is essentially what he suggested. (Again, I don't agree that it constitutes a conflict of interest! Just that the idea that a person descended from Mexican immigrants would likely not be a fan of his is not unreasonable.)

sgdesign 10y ago

So if Trump's problem is only with illegal immigrants, I'm sure he and his supporters would be more than happy to relax immigration policy and regularize the illegal immigrants that are already in the U.S., thus solving the issue?

fooker 10y ago
Well, he seems to plan the J1 and the H1B Visas. So, he is seemingly against potential legal immigrants too..
- nnd 10y ago
  H1B program is completely broken and is heavily abused by Indian bodyshops. US needs a skill-based migration system, like any other developed nation.
  - fooker 10y ago
    That would be awesome, if it was actually possible. The reason it is not done is that suddenly it would become much more difficult for Americans to get high paying jobs. H1B's lottery system is infuriating for those who go through it, but it is quite difficult to exploit deterministically. Who would you prefer coming to the US? 50000 semiskilled workers from TCS/Infosys/etc, or 50000 extremely talented engineers that will be no-brainer hires for any company every year?
hueving 10y ago
If someone steals money from you, you don't gift it to them to stop them from being a thief. The illegal immigrants that are here should have to go through the same process as the rest of us immigrants. Otherwise it's just moral hazard disincentivizing immigrants from following the legal process.
- carapace 10y ago
  I was talking with a Chinese coworker who had the same objection: He had gone through the arduous proper channels to immigrate, and wondered why the folks who came here illegally should be granted special favor. It seems unfair to him. I pointed out that many of the people here now as "illegal immigrants" are an indispensable part of our society and economy. They are de facto citizens, denied the full benefits of citizenship. We can't throw them out because our economy would tank. The options are to leave them in a twilight class or legitimize them. I definitely think that people coming here should do so legally. I'm not sure what to do about "the Mexican Problem" (to describe it in 18th century terms.)