DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court allows Trump administration to enforce ‘public charge’ immigration restriction

Supreme Court allows Trump administration to enforce ‘public charge’ immigration restriction

The Monday order followed a 5-4 split vote that divided the court’s conservatives and liberals.

At issue is the administration’s rule issued in August that would restrict immigrants entering the United States if the government believes they will rely on public assistance, such as housing or health care benefits. Lower federal courts had blocked the policy from being implemented while the issue is being litigated.

Justice Neil Gorsuch -- supported by Justice Clarence Thomas -- wrote a separate concurrence, criticizing the increased reliance on nationwide injunctions to block government policies.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme...ion-restriction

So much for, "“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

Trump is turning it into, "Send us your white, well educated people that speak English and don't really need to be here."

Nice twist of the facts there mister.

Really?

Trump unveils 'merit-based' immigration policy plan

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48304975

Well the illegitimate SCOTUS built by Moscow Mitch McConnell delivers a win to the most corrupt POTUS ever... who'd a thunk it.

trump doesn’t understand what he’s saying is “Hey well educated white person. Leave your native land where your government respects you enough to utilize your tax money to look after you with healthcare and education, and come to the country of gun violence and cut throat capitalism. The land where corporate interests rule. Give up your guaranteed 5 weeks of paid time off, your maternity leave, your paternity leave, and join us. Become a pawn in our oligarchy. Another tax payer for our war machine.”

The people he’s courting are far smarter than he.

Some years back I explained to a Canadian woman how our healthcare system worked. She was in shock. Especially when I told her that if you didn't have good health insurance approaching death, debtors could take everything you worked for upon your death to settle unpaid medical bills.

That ended any talk by her of how great we are.

You Lefties crack me up.

Constantly complaining about the greatest country in the world as if it needs improvements or something.

You should move to Canada or Norway and leave this great country to those of us who actually love it.

"Make America Great Again" sure sounds like the greatest country in the world needs improvements or something.

what im going to say might upset some people, but i hope everybody ends up understanding my viewpoint on this....

as someone who is married to a German, who carries a green card....i absolutely agree with this policy, on its own. however, it does matter who it comes from and why, which makes my support of this policy non binding.

When we went through the process of getting my wife's visa in 2013, one of the things i had to prove was that i could financially support her without being on government assistance. at the time i was still active duty so it wasnt a problem, but if i remember correctly, there was certain levels financially you had to be at in order to prove you had the money to support. for a family of 4, i believe it was somewhere around 28k a year, which is stupid low. dont quote me on the 28k because it was obviously going close to 7 years now, but there was a annual requirement based on family size that you had to be at.

and i understand completely why. we cant have people coming over here and immediately getting on the system. everybody understands its different when it comes to refugees and such, but for the typical person just wanting to come to america to start a new life and try to live the dream....we just cant, guys. those resources HAVE to be allocated to american citizens first.

them other countries have WAY tougher standards than we do. a lot of european countries wont let you get a visa if you dont already have a company to sponsor your work visa and go there with some sort of intermediate skill. obviously marriage is the quickest way to getting a visa, but for just the people wanting to come over, you cant go if youre gonna aplpy for benefits the moment you land in country. those safety nets are for citizens.

now, i get that sometimes, crap happens and you need some help. that can happen to ANYBODY and i get that. so far the people ALREADY here in country, they should be grandfather'd in. but for all the future immigrants?

yea, i support the policy. we already have a big enough problem with people completely staying on food stamps and section 8 and all these other programs. it just doesnt make any sense to import those same problems from overseas.

those are my beliefs for this policy as it is all on its own.

the problem is that when i add in everything else surrounding this, such as key players and rhetoric, it becomes a huge problem. because for the administration, fox news, and the *new* conservative base, very little of their concerns have to do with the actual cost, and more to do with how they look like and where they come from.

trump - the guy who rails against immigrants while employing illegal immigrants, claims a judge is biased because he's mexican and he's building a wall, claimed our first black president is a foreign born muslim, claims mexicans are murderers and rapist (although *some* might be fine people), creates a muslim ban on countries who dont even produce american terrorist, employed steve bannon, a card carrying racist, employs stephen miller, another card carrying racist, and made comments about shithole countries in africa and wanting more people from norway (black: bad, white: good) - is the guy i wont cheer for any immigration policies thats comes from him and the republican congress.

because intention matters.the GOP, fox news, breitbart and there loser viewing base, and the trump administration has done everything possible to cater to the alt-right and their racist, bigoted xenophobic values disguised as christian beliefs. and because of that, any policy that comes from them and appears common sense must be treated as anything but.

I get what you are saying and I agree to a point, but I see far too much room for this to be abused or not a good fit.

Let's say I'm a 20 something doctor fully trained as a heart specialist coming here from south america because I fear for my life. When I enter the US there will be a multi year process I must go through to allow me to practice medicine here. During that time I will need to find work and I am fully capable of this work but depending on the wage, I made need public assistance to make it. Do we turn this doctor away?

is that a made up scenario or did that actually happen?

Hypothetical.

i highly doubt a trained heart doctor is gonna have the same issues a typical person would.

we actually WANT those skillsets here. even in that hypothetical, thats why they hand out student visas.

you gotta do better than that. and btw, read my post again. i agree with you that because of who it is, its a big ass problem. im saying this policy on its own standing is fine.

I get the own standing part and I'm challenging this on it's own. What I'm saying is that there are several licensed professions that this policy could exclude from entry just because the migrant would have to become licensed here to practice their trade.

But this goes beyond that. Even an average working class immigrant might come here with enough money to show the can get established without public assistance. But once in the country that situation can change... The death, illness or incapacitation of the breadwinner could cause a whole family to be deported for needing help. A series of unfortunate investment, getting ripped off, being sued, or any number of things could cause somebody to need public assistance.

Then you have the average guy that can't get in... How many contributing immigrants in this country were flat ass broke when they got here? I understand that we should take care of the people we have here now that are citizens "first" as you say, but turning a guy away that might become the next Bezos or Gates? Or even the next tomato picker that makes a suggestion that revolutionizes agriculture, or stops an e coli epidemic, or safely puts the food on your kids plate today... How do we know who we are turning away over what amounts to pennies in government spending terms?

And that doesn't even take into consideration the contributions from the generations to follow from that immigrant making their way into the country. How can that be quantified? Is it even part of such a nearsighted policy?

Obviously there needs to be a screening process that is effective at removing criminals and outright leeches but what a man has in his pockets when he comes to your door does not define who he is or could be. And giving authority like this to an administration run by bigots is a horrible idea at any time.

But I will say this about Trump's admin, they get you thinking about what might be taken away from you or people like you or people you might place a higher priority on than you would a complete foreign stranger... Then all they have to do is tell you how the other should be treated as a lessor to keep you and those people you prioritize from losing... And this BS can work on even the most liberal, caring people.

I'm not a fan of importing problem people into our country. We need to weed out crooks, gangs, terrorist, system leeches, etc. But we are a country of immigrants and had we applied these rules since our beginning, what would our country look like? Whiter. Maybe less population. Maybe slightly richer. Are those things worth it?

Give us your rich, your athletes, your scholar groups.

I don't see anything wrong with keeping freeloaders out. You can't move in to other countries and expect to get free healthcare, food stamps, section 8 housing.

There comes a point where enough is enough.

You can vote your way in to communism, you have to shoot your way out.

The Statue of Liberty was created to celebrate freed slaves, not immigrants, its new museum recounts
By Gillian Brockell
May 23, 2019 at 7:30 a.m. EDT

The new Statue of Liberty Museum in New York Harbor boasts a number of treasures: the original torch, which was replaced in the 1980s; an unoxidized (read: not green) copper replica of Lady Liberty’s face; and recordings of immigrants describing the sight of the 305-foot monument.

It also revives an aspect of the statue’s long-forgotten history: Lady Liberty was originally designed to celebrate the end of slavery, not the arrival of immigrants. Ellis Island, the inspection station through which millions of immigrants passed, didn’t open until six years after the statue was unveiled in 1886. The plaque with the famous Emma Lazarus poem — “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” — wasn’t added until 1903.

“One of the first meanings [of the statue] had to do with abolition, but it’s a meaning that didn’t stick,” Edward Berenson, a history professor at New York University and author of the book “The Statue of Liberty: A Transatlantic Story,” said in an interview with The Washington Post.

The monument, which draws 4.5 million visitors a year, was first imagined by a man named Édouard de Laboulaye. In France, he was an expert on the U.S. Constitution and, at the close of the American Civil War, the president of a committee that raised and disbursed funds to newly freed slaves, according to Yasmin Sabina Khan, author of the book “Enlightening the World: The Creation of the Statue of Liberty.”

Laboulaye loved America — often giving speeches described by a New York Times correspondent in 1867 as “feasts of liberty which move the souls of men to their deepest depths” — and he loved it even more when slavery was abolished.

In June 1865, Laboulaye organized a meeting of French abolitionists at his summer home in Versailles, Berenson said.

“They talked about the idea of creating some kind of commemorative gift that would recognize the importance of the liberation of the slaves,” Berenson said.

One theory has her face being adapted from a statue Bartholdi had proposed for the Suez Canal, meaning her visage could resemble that of an Egyptian woman. The Times reported she was based on the Roman goddess Libertas, who typically wore the type of cap worn by freed Roman slaves.

In the final model, Lady Liberty holds a tablet inscribed with the Roman numerals for July 4, 1776. The broken chains are still there though, beneath her feet, “but they’re not all that visible,” Berenson said.

Fundraising in both France and the United States took a while, and according to the NPS, Bartholdi cast the project in the broadest terms possible to widen the net of potential donors. He also built the torch-bearing arm to tour around and inspire people to open up their wallets.

By then, “the original meaning of the abolition of slavery had pretty much gotten lost,” Berenson said, going unmentioned in newspaper coverage.

In fact, black newspapers railed against it as meaningless and hypocritical. By 1886, Reconstruction had been crushed, the Supreme Court had rolled back civil rights protections, and Jim Crow laws were tightening their grip.

In his book, Berenson quotes an 1886 editorial in the black newspaper the Cleveland Gazette: “Shove the Bartholdi statue, torch and all, into the ocean until the ‘liberty’ of this country is such as to make it possible for an industrious and inoffensive colored man in the South to earn a respectable living for himself and family … The idea of the ‘liberty’ of this country ‘enlightening the world,’ or even Patagonia, is ridiculous in the extreme.”

W.E.B. Du Bois also mentioned this in his autobiography, recalling seeing the statue upon arriving back in the United States in 1894 after two years in Europe: “I know not what multitude of emotions surged in the others, but I had to recall [a] mischievous little French girl whose eyes twinkled as she said: ‘Oh, yes, the Statue of Liberty! With its back toward America, and its face toward France!’”

There were immigrants on board that ship with Du Bois, but he didn’t talk to any of them. The ship was segregated.

Link

What I actually find odd about your post is it seems there are already measures in place as you spelled out. That being the case, why would new policies have to be written unless there is some other agenda is at the root of it?

That's the reason why nobody is trying to vote their way into communism. To believe something as silly as that one would have to believe that every nation in Europe and Canada is communist.

You know, around here, people hang donuts on trees to attract the Bears looking for a free meal. They get lots of Bears. They get great pictures.

Then the bears destroy the neighborhood and everyone cries, Shoot the Bears!

So the government passes laws disarming the neighbors.

maybe there are, but not enforced? we have a lot of laws in this country that arent enforced, some for obvious reasons and others not so much.

again, i agree with you on the agenda aspect, which is why i made that aspect of the policy very clear in the OP and the response to OCD.

all im saying is that on its surface, i get why it got passed by the administration and upheld by the SC.

I have to go with the thought process of let's enforce the laws already on the books before we start making new ones to solve the same issue. In this case it appears to be more of a political stunt than anything else.

I mean let's face it, Republicans are in control of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Customs and Border patrol. If they aren't enforcing the current laws, why would they enforce new ones?

they wouldnt, and its just more red meat for the base to chew on.

if there are already enforcement measures to use then i agree with you. but i do wonder how many people arent aware of those measures, particularly those in his base?

There's a lot of them. That's why I understand this is nothing more than a political stunt.

And the 1st reply makes it about race. Of Course!!! EVERYTHING has to be about race. No matter what the argument, no matter what, always gotta be about race......sigh....

Name any nation that has a white population which he has tried to keep immigrants out. Name one nation that has a majority white population that he called a "s#!+hole country. Name one mainly white nation that's an a travel ban.

I'll wait......

Maybe it has nothing to do with the predominate color of the nation but has more to do with the thinking of the nation.

I'd bet most black, people of color who have lived in the USA think much differently than peers who live in other nations. Especially non-westernizes nations.

I don't think it has anything to do with color. It probably has more to do with culture and religion. Not race.

You want to be an individual, but you also want to fit in...it isn't the wise move to put down everything about where you have chosen to live. Not the best way to meld in to society.


I am all for slowing or stopping illegal immigration. I am not for shipping people out unless they are criminals. Criminals above and beyond being here. I can give that a pass.


Oh...Mexico is paying for the wall. Not the wall on our common border. The wall they are building on their southern border. The flow of illegals has dropped big time since Mexico won't allow people out of Central America free passage to our border.

No matter how hard you try and twist it, American tax payers are paying for the wall. You really can't twist your way out of that fact. But you are certainly correct that Trump has managed to work with Mexico to greatly stem the flood of people coming in from Central America.



Who is it your propose is doing this?

I mean is it actually your contention that it's only people who immigrate from nations of color who do this? Or that people coming from nations of color would not, or do not embrace coming to America?

Nice attacking twist but fail.

American Taxpayers pay less for the wall by far than they do to feed, house, educate, provide medical care, abort their unwanted pregnancies, and more for illegals.

I suppose the Democrat from Minnesota who is Muslim, elected by a district of Muslims?


No Muslim fear monger here....just saying.

Previous immigrants, Irish, Italians, eastern Europeans, even illegal Mexicans, they held on to their culture, yet they tried to blend in and become Americans.

Yet you just admitted we pay for the wall. Thanks.

This is what happens when one paints with a broad brush. Firstly, she was elected because she's a flaming liberal in a liberal district. You see, the American political system allows each district to elect a person who espouses their values. Actually equal representation is about as American as it gets.

Secondly, other than keeping their religion, just as the Jews, Hindu's and many religions taught around the globe have held to upon coming to our country, the vast majority of Muslims in our country have adopted American values, many are business owners and law abiding citizens just like immigrants from other nations are.

the vast majority of any demographic does that. they do that despite an american culture that projects a barrier of unacceptance and bigotry from its so called "patriotic" citizens.