3 ms·
This is not a good thing to hope for. We don't weaponize clerical agencies for criminal, civil, or political purposes. It's a very bad idea, and will come bac
by big_chungus 7y ago
This is not a good thing to hope for. We don't weaponize clerical agencies for criminal, civil, or political purposes. It's a very bad idea, and will come back to bite you when the "other side" gets power.
- martin8412 7y agoIsn't that typically what happens though when you can't nail someone on anything else? It's how they nailed Al Capone after all.
- chocolatebunny 7y agoYup. Everyone remembers what happened with the whole IRS/Teaparty thing.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- gamblor956 7y agoIf white nationalist extremists take control of the White House again, I think that IRS audits will be the least of anyone's worries, especially for minorities and immigrants.
- the_optimist 7y agoPlease stop spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. There is unambiguously zero evidence that any of the constructs you have cited are an accurate representation of reality.
- rconti 7y agohttps://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/trump-administration-aims-to-make-citizenship-more-difficult-for-immigrants-who-rely-on-public-assistance/2019/08/12/fe3f8162-b565-11e9-8949-5f36ff92706e_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/trump-administrat... It seems like a reasonable conclusion. It's certainly a slippery slope. Is not the next step to decide that anyone who has received health insurance marketplace benefits are a drag on society? Social security? (oh, wait, they need the votes of the elderly). Education?
- pnw_hazor 7y agoOh my. A President that is enforcing laws that have been on the books for years. Likelihood of becoming a public charge has been grounds for inadmissibility long befor Trump came along. And, Clinton signed the law requiring sponsors to pay back any benefits their sponsored immigrant(s) may have used. (All legal immigrants require a sponsor who swears to cover any and all expenses associated with the immigrant in the case where the immigrant cannot pay themselves) The sponsor is on the hook until the immigrant naturalizes or has done 40 months of legal work in the US. Note, there are plenty of exceptions for refugees and such.
- rconti 7y ago> The new criteria for “Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds,” due to take effect Oct. 15 New criteria.
- pnw_hazor 7y agoAs far back as 1952 "paupers, professional beggars, or vagrants" have been inadmissible. (Actually first introduced in 1882) Since then there have been many amendments (usually adding exceptions). It is not unreasonable, but for specific exceptions, to deny visas to persons that are likely to require public benefits. The federal statutes have been that way for a long time, currently 100,000s of immigrants have to under go public charge scrutiny. Trump is expanding the criteria/test but it still looks like it is within the law.
- gamblor956 7y agoZero evidence? Just this past summer, our president has called for 4 US-born legislators to be sent back to the "shithole countries" they came from because he automatically assumed that people of color weren't born in America. At multiple campaign rallies this summer, he's stood by and smiled as the crowd chanted for violence to be committed against minorities. And it's not like this is a new thing for him. Back in NY before his political career, he vociferously campaigned for the execution of the Central Park 5...black and Latino teenagers...all of whom were proven to be factually innocent. And to this day he stands by this.
- zaroth 7y agoThere are other places on the internet that would be better suited for this content please.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]