5 ms·

Please stop spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. There is unambiguously zero evidence that any of the constructs you have cited are an accurate representatio

Please 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 ago
https://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 ago
  Oh 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 ago
      As 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 ago
Zero 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 ago
  There are other places on the internet that would be better suited for this content please.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

Please 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 ago

https://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 ago
Oh 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 ago
    As 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 ago

Zero 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 ago
There are other places on the internet that would be better suited for this content please.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]