6 ms·

Ah yes, the clause that neatly manages to exclude tax payers who have ITNs that look and at filing time function just like an SSN but somehow are neatly trimmed

• bigbubba 6y ago
  How did it get there?
• rayiner 6y ago
  It got there because Congress, not the administration, put it in there.
  • WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
    It'd be fair to say that vocal hostility toward immigration is more concentrated in one party - and that that party is spread across the WH and Congress. To be reasonable tho, effective hostility toward immigration is historically well represented in both parties (eg: immigration policies under the previous admin).
    • rayiner 6y ago
      Excluding certain immigrants from taxpayer-funded public benefits isn't "hostility." Deciding to take care of citizens and permanent residents and not others, or denying government benefits to create disincentives for illegal immigration, is a legitimate exercise of a people's right to self-determination. This is not something limited to U.S. Republicans. Most EU countries exclude illegal immigrants from their universal healthcare systems, for example:https://rmx.news/article/article/germany-should-pay-illegal-migrants-1-500-in-coronavirus-aid-and-grant-them-amnesty-demands-leftist-party-mps https://rmx.news/article/article/germany-should-pay-illegal-... Giving government benefits to illegal immigrants is a tough issue. On one hand, its rightfully an unpopular policy and risks creating incentives to immigrate illegally. On the other hand, denying benefits risks creating a permanent underclass of people who are prevented from integrating. I tend to believe the best approach is to rigorously enforce immigration restrictions, while including those who the country isn't willing to exclude or deport within the welfare system. But these should be viewed as policy choices, not in terms of "hostility" or some such silliness.
      • dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Excluding certain immigrants from taxpayer-funded public benefits isn't "hostility." Maybe, but the vocal hostility toward immigrants in the Republican Party is, well, vocal hostility, and not limited to a policy preference for excluding certain immigrants from taxpayer-funded benefits.
        • rayiner 6y ago
          The "vocal hostility" (such as it is) rests on policy. The U.S. has twice as many illegal immigrants as "Europe" (EU-27+UK+EFTA), despite having a third less people overall. That is the result of policies--lax border enforcement, lack of enforcement of work eligibility requirements, etc. People get hostile when other people don't follow the rules and the government doesn't enforce the rules. (E.g. Wall Street after the 2009 recession.) But that's still a matter of policy.
      • WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
        > Excluding certain immigrants from taxpayer-funded public benefits isn't "hostility." That may or may not be true but it's absolutely reflective of the hostility that that colors immigration policy.
        • rayiner 6y ago
          You've got it backwards. The hostility is a symptom of the policy of not enforcing immigration laws, not the other way around.
          • WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
            Implying that there have been any modern periods without meaningful enforcement of immigration laws perpetuates a false scenario.
          • tripzilch 6y ago
            Certainly, it's not the people being a bunch of hateful xenophobes, it's all those daarn foreigners, causing them to act that way. Because ... you got there first? Except you didn't?