4 ms·

That page references John Boehner and Mitt Romney, who don’t have any influence in Republican policy anymore. The current administration has repeatedly demonst

That page references John Boehner and Mitt Romney, who don’t have any influence in Republican policy anymore. The current administration has repeatedly demonstrated their antipathy to legal immigration.

malandrew 8y ago
The current administration as far as I can tell is trying to force Democrats to the table to get comprehensive immigration reform that includes the things I listed above.
jki275 8y ago
Cite please. The current administration has never done anything to show antipathy to legal immigration, the first lady is a legal immigrant as are her parents.
- georgeburdell 8y ago
  "Muslim ban" affected the ability for Iranians to immigrate. All of the top engineering/science schools in the U.S. lost an entire cohort of Iranian students this past year.
  - jki275 8y ago
    First, there was no "muslim ban", and second the list of countries affected had been defined already by Congress years previous, not the President or the current administration. Also school visas are not immigrant visas if one wants to be pedantic about it.
    - spiznnx 8y ago
      There is an Iran ban, call it whatever you like. The existence of a list at a certain point in time doesn't mean anything if the current administration is the one that uses it in a policy it created itself. School visas are the foot in the door for young scientists and engineers to employment in the US.
      - jki275 8y ago
        They restricted immigration from countries who posed a threat. That threat was defined previously. You're being disingenuous in claiming it was motivated by religion. You're incorrect in stating it restricted legal immigration. It stopped immigration by countries deemed a threat to the security of the US by Congress and the previous administration.
        freeone3000 8y ago
        Oh, come on, there was a given number of legal immigrants and now there are fewer because of a change in government policies, that's a restriction on legal immigration. You're arguing it's justified, but stating it didn't reduce legal immigration is simply incorrect. Because it did. I also don't think it's disingenuous in stating it was motivated by religion when the circuit court for Hawaii declared it was and 4 members of the supreme court agreed.
        shaklee3 8y ago
        Can you provide a source for that? I tried finding information showing a decrease in legal immigration, but couldn't find any statistics that were current.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- damnyou 8y ago
  This is a common misunderstanding. Trump has attacked through policy legal immigration far more than illegal immigration. https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/trumps-attacks-legal-immigration-system-explained https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/trumps-attack...
  - jki275 8y ago
    There's literally no point in trying to support a position like this with a left wing policy blog.
    - outworlder 8y ago
      There's no point trying to argue if everything is just getting labeled, instead of the underlying facts and ideas getting discussed.
- akhilcacharya 8y ago
  She's a white legal immigrant.
  - jki275 8y ago
    yeah yeah racism. The siren song of those who have no argument.
    - akhilcacharya 8y ago
      Their actions against legal immigrants of color speak louder than their weak virtue signals.
      - jki275 8y ago
        What legal immigrants have they taken "actions" against.
        joserg 8y ago
        Flubbing the census, reducing numbers of legal immigrants allowed, general public shaming of non-european immigrants from "shit hole" countries (that US policy helped create, BTW.) Honestly, you have to be trying to not see the pattern. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/18/trump-legal-immigration-crackdown-legal-challenge https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/18/trump-legal-... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/now-trump-administration-wants-limit-citizenship-legal-immigrants-n897931 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/now-trump-admin...
        jki275 8y ago
        If you're arguing that Somalia isn't a failed state that makes it very difficult to approve visas (the example in your first link), that's not a "crackdown on legal immigration", it's a feature of a system that does not grant visas to people whose names can't even be verified, let alone criminal background checks performed. That's been a feature of the US immigration system (and in fact all immigration systems) for a very long time, it didn't originate with this administration. Your second link is a bit silly. Perhaps you're not acquainted with how immigration works. When a person is sponsored to immigrate to the US, their sponsor signs an agreement to essentially pay for them for the next ten years no matter what. I know, I've actually filled out and signed that form along with the I-130. Use of public assistance programs is a significant red flag on a citizenship application (always has been), due to the fact that means the person probably somehow does not have the means to support themselves, and thus is not likely in compliance with our immigration system. Our immigration system and citizenship system is based on allowing people to immigrate who can provide for themselves or have people who will provide for them -- that's a feature, not a bug. You may disagree with the program, but the administration is simply enforcing policies that are current law. Previous administrations may have chosen to ignore those laws, but that doesn't remove them from the books. There are plenty of features built into the US Government to change those laws if the people so desire -- the people in the US have chosen not to do so, your feelings notwithstanding. The census flap is about counting citizens, not illegals. We all know that some people want all illegal aliens counted as it would skew things in some areas, but again, change the laws if you don't like them.
- outworlder 8y ago
  > as are her parents Uh, 'chain migration'?

malandrew 8y ago

The current administration as far as I can tell is trying to force Democrats to the table to get comprehensive immigration reform that includes the things I listed above.

jki275 8y ago

Cite please. The current administration has never done anything to show antipathy to legal immigration, the first lady is a legal immigrant as are her parents.

georgeburdell 8y ago
"Muslim ban" affected the ability for Iranians to immigrate. All of the top engineering/science schools in the U.S. lost an entire cohort of Iranian students this past year.
- jki275 8y ago
  First, there was no "muslim ban", and second the list of countries affected had been defined already by Congress years previous, not the President or the current administration. Also school visas are not immigrant visas if one wants to be pedantic about it.
  - spiznnx 8y ago
    There is an Iran ban, call it whatever you like. The existence of a list at a certain point in time doesn't mean anything if the current administration is the one that uses it in a policy it created itself. School visas are the foot in the door for young scientists and engineers to employment in the US.
    - jki275 8y ago
      They restricted immigration from countries who posed a threat. That threat was defined previously. You're being disingenuous in claiming it was motivated by religion. You're incorrect in stating it restricted legal immigration. It stopped immigration by countries deemed a threat to the security of the US by Congress and the previous administration.
      - freeone3000 8y ago
        Oh, come on, there was a given number of legal immigrants and now there are fewer because of a change in government policies, that's a restriction on legal immigration. You're arguing it's justified, but stating it didn't reduce legal immigration is simply incorrect. Because it did. I also don't think it's disingenuous in stating it was motivated by religion when the circuit court for Hawaii declared it was and 4 members of the supreme court agreed.
        shaklee3 8y ago
        Can you provide a source for that? I tried finding information showing a decrease in legal immigration, but couldn't find any statistics that were current.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
damnyou 8y ago
This is a common misunderstanding. Trump has attacked through policy legal immigration far more than illegal immigration. https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/trumps-attacks-legal-immigration-system-explained https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/trumps-attack...
- jki275 8y ago
  There's literally no point in trying to support a position like this with a left wing policy blog.
  - outworlder 8y ago
    There's no point trying to argue if everything is just getting labeled, instead of the underlying facts and ideas getting discussed.
akhilcacharya 8y ago
She's a white legal immigrant.
- jki275 8y ago
  yeah yeah racism. The siren song of those who have no argument.
  - akhilcacharya 8y ago
    Their actions against legal immigrants of color speak louder than their weak virtue signals.
    - jki275 8y ago
      What legal immigrants have they taken "actions" against.
      - joserg 8y ago
        Flubbing the census, reducing numbers of legal immigrants allowed, general public shaming of non-european immigrants from "shit hole" countries (that US policy helped create, BTW.) Honestly, you have to be trying to not see the pattern. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/18/trump-legal-immigration-crackdown-legal-challenge https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/18/trump-legal-... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/now-trump-administration-wants-limit-citizenship-legal-immigrants-n897931 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/now-trump-admin...
        jki275 8y ago
        If you're arguing that Somalia isn't a failed state that makes it very difficult to approve visas (the example in your first link), that's not a "crackdown on legal immigration", it's a feature of a system that does not grant visas to people whose names can't even be verified, let alone criminal background checks performed. That's been a feature of the US immigration system (and in fact all immigration systems) for a very long time, it didn't originate with this administration. Your second link is a bit silly. Perhaps you're not acquainted with how immigration works. When a person is sponsored to immigrate to the US, their sponsor signs an agreement to essentially pay for them for the next ten years no matter what. I know, I've actually filled out and signed that form along with the I-130. Use of public assistance programs is a significant red flag on a citizenship application (always has been), due to the fact that means the person probably somehow does not have the means to support themselves, and thus is not likely in compliance with our immigration system. Our immigration system and citizenship system is based on allowing people to immigrate who can provide for themselves or have people who will provide for them -- that's a feature, not a bug. You may disagree with the program, but the administration is simply enforcing policies that are current law. Previous administrations may have chosen to ignore those laws, but that doesn't remove them from the books. There are plenty of features built into the US Government to change those laws if the people so desire -- the people in the US have chosen not to do so, your feelings notwithstanding. The census flap is about counting citizens, not illegals. We all know that some people want all illegal aliens counted as it would skew things in some areas, but again, change the laws if you don't like them.
outworlder 8y ago
> as are her parents Uh, 'chain migration'?