Such transparent racism
They aren't even trying to hide it any longer, because Trump has shown that overt racism doesn't scare away his base and in fact makes many of them like him more!
The Trump administration on Monday previewed a pending rule change that will make it more difficult for legal immigrants to obtain green cards or temporary visas in Amerca if they use public benefits like food stamps or Medicaid. The policy change could affect over a million green card and visa holders in the US and many …
Yes I think so, as it is about current income.
For future income, at the very least the critieria should be very, very exactly defined, and not upto some poorly educated TSA type agent to determine. People who know math and science, whose subjectivety could at least arguably be depended on, do not work as approval officers.
This income crystal ball with fortune teller officers I don't think is in practice elsewhere.
"Pretty people are paid more, you aren't pretty. No visa for you. (Officer takes break and goes to 8chan to update skillz...)"
Do get over the anti trump knee jerking. Most western countries have similar stipulations about immigrants being able to support themselves or having secured a job before they're allowed residency and/or a work permit so they're not a drain on the system.
And no its not racism unless you think americans are one race and the rest of the world is another.
Perhaps people like you should complain about countries with real human rights abuses and give the manufactured virtue signalling shrieking a rest.
And did he say only white people from europe then? And what about the antipodes or south africa? They're also pretty white in Argentina and Chile - has Trump banned citizens from there too?
Also what race, for example, do you think Mexicans are? You might want to have a think about that before replying since you don't seem to understand the difference between race and nationality.
"so racist is where it affects the majority of the world"
So Trump is throwing out chinese and indians then because he doesn't like them? That'll be news to their communities in the US.
Last time I looked latin america was not "the majority of the world". Perhaps buy yourself a map after getting a clue.
"Such transparent racism"
Dude, most every country in the world already does this. Just ask any of your white British friends who have moved to Australia or New Zealand and then been unable to bring parents over due to health needs. The only way round it is for your parents to divorce and marry locals.
If its so transparent can you tell which specific races it affects? Or how the legislation manages to single out any race apart from "non American citizens". Interestingly America seems to be more racially diverse than Africa or India.
How the American government decide to welcome or not new citizens is up to them within reason.
Of course if the bureaucrats are not applying the rules correctly that is another thing.
That's what I was thinking. The slope down has started. It wouldn't be too much of stretch that anyone drawing any benefits including Social Security could find themselves on a list.
BTW, NHS is for those in Britain. We don't have an NHS here in the States. Well, not as such because we do have various programs for medical... Medicare, Medicaid and probably more that I don't know the acronyms for.
The point is that this doesn't just discriminate against those relying on state benefits (or "rights", as I'd prefer to call them). It discriminates against those who might possibly, in the opinion of someone following an agenda, in the future rely on state benefits. So basically anyone and everyone whose face doesn't fit the right profile.
This is Trump's America entering the dystopian future of "pre-crime", where you are punished for "crimes" you haven't committed (yet). Except they're not using the futuristic science of Philip K Dick's Minority Report. They're just using plain, old-fashioned racism.
@Just Enough It discriminates against those who might possibly, in the opinion of someone following an agenda, in the future rely on state benefits.
Until recently, Canada would turn back a wealthy and productive applicant if they had a single disabled child: https://crippledscholar.com/2016/04/19/what-canadas-immigration-policies-say-about-the-status-of-disability-in-canada/
(From the law: "A foreign national is inadmissible on health grounds if their health condition might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services." You can find the text here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-9.html?txthl=health#s-38)
...they're not using the futuristic science of Philip K Dick's Minority Report. They're just using plain, old-fashioned racism.
Is old-fashioned eugenics better?
Even if you're OK with it, Canada's policy wasn't limited to provable conditions like Downs and Fragile-X. Many of the denials were for more speculative diagnoses.
"state benefits (or "rights", as I'd prefer to call them)."
And you'd be wrong - no one has the right to free money. If your country supplies it then good for you but its a long way from being worldwide.
"This is Trump's America entering the dystopian future of "pre-crime","....
Trump. Evil. Orwellian. Blah blah blah. Change the Student Protest Greatest Hits record FFS.
You already need to pay a £100 a year NHS levy as an immigrant to this country (for the first five years before you can apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain) on top of your taxes and your ~£2000 visa application fee (cost to the Home Office to process, about £250). If you're married to a UK citizen, that UK citizen has to make at least £18k a year so that he can support you if need be (no accesss to benefits). If you're over here on a work visa you need to make at least £30k or no visa for you. Trust me, Theresa May was well ahead of our transatlantic cousins on this one.
I was getting really confused listening to the radio news report on this. They seemed to be saying that non-citizens who were claiming benefits would be denied applications for citizenship. But how on earth are non-citizens getting benefits?
Certainly when my then-wife came to the UK in the 1990s as a non-citizen she couldn't claim benefits, and working in benefits support it was a standard stamp in foreigner's passports "no recourse to public funds".
BTW, the NHS is *not* for people in Britiain, it is for British citizens in Britain. One of the distressing problems is that the NHS is not set up to properly ascertain non-cit's medical coverage and follow back to the coverage provider.
Personally I'd rather treat people than have someone who contracts a treatable but contagious communicable disease walking around untreated.....else you up the risk of pandemics, loss of productivity due to others getting sick from person A and associated costs due to this.
Its called being decent human beings. Unlike the last few governments who to save a poorly estimated £1.3 billion over 5 years cut support to the disabled under the heading of "focusing support" while then giving 5 times that amount in aid to Africa, which likely will end up funding warlords etc given that there are numerous instances of money not getting where it was intended and no oversight of it.
I'd support a "charity begins at home" act, which bars ANY foreigh aid (or any other weasel term for it) until such time that there are no homeless people, the NHS A&E wait time is sub 60 minutes consistently, treatment begins consistently in under a week, disability support exceeds UN rights of the disabled, no child lives in poverty (And a ban on shifting the goalposts), carer's allowance raised to match minimum wage (your expected to do 35+ hours of care a week for the equivalent of £1.90 or less an hour and you have worse restrictions than an employer could slap on you - not permitted to study without permission, not permitted to take on any work without permission, strict limitations on weekly earnings, required to immediately notify DWP of every day or part day you or the person you care for is an inpatient in hospital or face criminal sanctions (with no discretion given)
No chance it would happen though as politicians love their photo ops and the chance to "save the world", get a good jolly somewhere and too many vested interest groups would go ballistic "but we have a colonial legacy," etc, UK has just as bad a pork barrel program problem as the USA, in some ways worse tbh....particularly with the quite blatant agenda of the BBC - pro -rad feminism, pro extreme environmentalism, pro-religion, anti-sex, pro-authoritarianism, anti-technology, anti-disabled and anti-poor and often with writing worse than the gutter press, claiming one wing nut "expert" opinion is worth as much or more than the a pile of others, writing stories taken from rabble rousing groups on facebook etc - "should we stop washing our clothes", quick google turns up it came from a very science averse green group - "synthetic clothing creates microfibres which attract vast toxic DDT and BPA concentrations in the oceans, we must ban them now!" (I'm sorry as far as I knew DDT was banned in many places DECADES ago - its the kind of anti-science hysteria thats down right frightening and out of touch with reality, yet the BBC publishes it as fact and uses public money to push its agenda money collected via menaces and intimidation)
Seem to have become a political rag, shame as have been reading for 20 years
It's just that recently there has been an attempt from some quarters to politicise things that 20 years ago would have been entirely uncontroversial - like simple human decency. Your lot are actually doing quite well in that respect, so the flounce seems entirely superfluous.
And, given that in 2010, you replied to an entirely non-political post about the F35 programme complaining that the UK:
spend hundreds of billions on the lazy and feckless through benefits ... well done to the socialists
the evidence does suggest that you've been at it for some time. So not sure why you've suddenly given up.
To remove racial bias, have Jacob Rees-Mogg set the test.
Then the test would be in Latin, and someone would have to tell the Tangerine Fucktrumpet that "Latin" =/= "Latin America" ...
(for those fortunate enough not to know about Rees-Mogg, let's just say he's a swivel-eyed loon who seems to live in the 18th century and would gladly bring workhouses and compulsory Latin lessons if he thought he could get away with it. One newspaper described him as "a thoroughly modern bigot", which is all you really need to know)
And there we go, minions in power disregard the law and set their own criteria.
That is exactly where the USA has gone wrong : letting minor government officials reign supreme without any recourse. That is exactly how a corrupt regime displays itself.
If the limit is $220 000, you little scribbler have no authority to decide that it is suddenly $1 million in a specific case.
But they did it, and nobody can complain about it.
And you still call yourself a democracy ?
"If the limit is $220 000, you little scribbler have no authority to decide that it is suddenly $1 million in a specific case."
I agree. And if $220k is determined to be too low, then change the limit.
But I also think that if you don't know the English language, at least to a 3rd to 5th grade level, you will have a hard time getting out of poverty in the U.S. You are really handicapping yourself. Fortunately, there are a lot of ESL classes available.
I think it is reasonable to have actionable criteria for individuals seeking citizenship - it is not a right.
So learning English or a language necessary to be economically self-sufficient is a reasonable expectation to me.
But whatever the criteria they must be measurable and defined, in writing and in law.
They *cannot* be subjective or at the whim or discretion of poorly educated and narrow-minded approval officers.
Those officers would pick another job if they were any better.
Surely if the US wants to deny citizenship to people most likely to use benefits, it's going to have to start removing current citizens, not immigrants? Given that immigrants in the US are "less likely to consume welfare benefits" (src).
Wait, does welfare and benefits cover all government money going to private citizens? Because the US Government has had to pay Trump millions of dollars every time he goes golfing (and he promised to go golfing less than Obama did, he failed).
The problem though, is that legal migrants are not much of a problem. They are there legally, want to work and, by definition, pay taxes. There's, IIRC, something in the region of 11 million illegal immigrants in the USA and, like pretty much any country, they are the one you need to be dealing with in some form or other by either deporting them or legitimising them. Illegal immigrants, by definition are harming the economy because either they can't work so get into illegal activities, or are working in breach of local laws, not paying taxes and probably being exploited.
Who hasn't had a manager/user/department head try to sidestep set procedures and policies to get something done?
Cloud contracts on expense cards, new office chair hidden in the printer budget, a case of vodka in cleaning supplies, etc.
Both sides of the immigration debacle are guilty of it. There are people pressing at the borders who want everything NOW, because they're stepping on the soil, and it's their "right", or who are just so naive that they think it's a "get across the line" thing.
Then you have the other side that wants to bypass restrictions on or block enforcement of the regulations that are already in place to prevent abuse of the immigration systems.
For most countries you wouldn't think of just walking in and demanding full treatment without doing the proper stuff. In some of them, that would be an easy way to literally disappear and become one with the earth again.
I'm not bashing immigration by any means, I wouldn't be here if it weren't for it.
My ancestors came over through the proper channels of the time, for better or worse of how those operated, so it kind of is a hot button when people expect a quick bypass of enacted procedures.
Maybe we could bankroll cruise ships to move some of our overage to Canada, where they will be met with open arms, a heartfelt "Sorry for the delays." and a complementary Tim Hortons travel mug? Put a film crew on them and the media may even pay for it.
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Perhaps this (now) subversive script should be updated - All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" seems more in the spirit of the times.
... to whom the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost roughly $100,000, to whom banking and insurance bailouts, and "quantitative easing" each has cost similar amounts. Works out to tens of thousands of dollars per year. Money given to big companies like GE and Exxon adds up to another few thousand. Add to that my share of government debt due to a series of tax-cuts for rich people and other large companies, also a similar amount.
On the other hand, feeding and housing poor people every year costs me a few hundred dollars, the National Endowment for the Arts costs ten or fifteen.
Someone needs to buy a truckload of corrective hats and start handing them out in Washington DC.
...and the surest way to make it unlikely that someone will end up on government assistance is to require that the minimum wage can actually provide -- as President Roosevelt said on signing the National Industrial Recovery Act -- "...the wages of decent living," and require that all employers pay AT LEAST that.
At least, that would be the answer if making sure that people wouldn't be a "public charge" was actually the goal.
The minimum wage in the US is pretty high at the moment, by historical standards. But you can't kill the Jews until you persuade everyone that the Jews are stealing their money, and you can't persuade them of that until you sell them a lie about how poor they are. It's also well established historically that setting a too-high minimum wage allows the prejudiced far more opportunity to act in a racist manner.
Adjusted for purchasing power, the US minimum wage puts full time workers into the top 5-10% on the planet by income. You're selling Nazi bullshit.
Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. IF you can get a full-time (40 hr/wk) job, that's $209/wk before taxes. At 4.3 weeks/month, that's $1247/mo., pre-tax.
The median rent for a 1-bedroom apartment in my state is about $1850/mo.
Someone working for the federal minimum wage in my state would -- quite literally! -- need to work TWO full-time jobs to rent an average 1-bedroom and still manage to eat, and such like.
...and, somehow, my being able to do simple arithmetic means -- according to you -- that I'm some sort of Nazi(!). </eyeroll>
I was watching some low life scrounger using their WiC checks in the supermarket line last week. Judging by the performance both she and the checker had to go through for what must have been about $30 worth of checks I figure that the bureaucracy spent at least as much on issuing and honoring those checks than she got in benefits. (....and this is in relatively welfare friendly California, too). We are not only a bit miserly with those checks -- it all goes back to the Regan "Welfare Queen" era -- but we really like to rub those recipient's noses in it, to make sure that everyone knows that they're receiving welfare (and make sure they know their place as well).
we really like to rub those recipient's noses in it, to make sure that everyone knows that they're receiving welfare (and make sure they know their place as well)
You mean like by calling a pregnant woman (or mother with a child under age 5, per the rules) a "low life scrounger" rather than just someone who's trying to get enough food to feed her kids?
I lived and worked in the USA for 22 years (green card holder) and when I went there it was not too difficult (although the 'must not be a burden' thing was still investigated).
In the mid to late 90s, a law was passed that non-citizens would not be eligible for social security payments (retirement income) even though those people were still paying taxes; went to the Supreme Court who upheld the law on (clearly) political grounds (the challenge was under the 14th amendment equality clause).
So we want your tax money but we don't want to pay you back for it.
Par for the course in the USA nowadays. A shame really - I enjoyed all the jobs I had there.
Icon because it is approaching that time.
In the mid to late 90s, a law was passed that non-citizens would not be eligible for social security payments (retirement income) even though those people were still paying taxes;
That's strange, I worked in the US for 5.5 years in the late nineties and the early noughties firstly on an L1B visa and then a Green Card for the last year. I now get a US pension even though I no longer live there. It's not a fortune, but it helps.
Long overdue because our tax base is shrinking. Work participation is dropping and we need to increase productive workforce into the population. We cannot keep bringing freeloaders into the country. You look at all the coastal states, tons of people on welfare. Many illegals working cash jobs like construction and still getting free money from the local government. Tell liberals that if you wanna on-board more poor immigrants be prepared to have their income taxes hiked by another 10-15% and see how that works out.
"Many illegals working cash jobs like construction and still getting free money from the local government."
So how are they managing to do that? Must be shonky employers. Maybe that's where the crackdown needs to be, rather than making it hard for those who are legally there.
This all strikes me as a paper tiger scheme to make it look like something is being done but which won't actually cost anything.
And one couldn't possible tax corporations? And one couldn't possibly prosecute the people hiring the illegals?
I wonder about who those "Freeloaders" actually are. I mean the government is always subsidising corporations with tax breaks and military interventions as well as bailing out the 0.01% to the tune of about 50 complete Apollo programs. And yet, there is ONLY the shrinking workforce to pay for it too?
First; the US is not a democracy. We're a representative republic. We do not do "mob rule" as evident, in part, by our use of the Electoral College to choose our Chief Executive. This was done intentionally and works well. The people of California and New York cannot impose their political will on the rest of the country.
Second; what gives an immigrant, illegal or not, the right to put one foot in my country and immediately be eligible for taxpayer-funded benefits? When my great-grandparents immigrated to the US they had to sign paperwork agreeing that they wouldn't be allowed taxpayer-funded benefits. They had to have employment lined up or the ability to be self-reliant. They had to pass a medical exam. They had to be able to speak, read, and write English. They had to be willing to invest themselves in this country and its ideals. Now all they need to do is, somehow, get across the border and/or pop out a kid here and they're golden. They're not invested in this country nor do they intend to be. They don't give a damn about the US except for what they can vote away from the American taxpayer.
I'm a native Californian. The vast majority of immigrants (legal and otherwise) here come from the third-world and speak, exclusively, any one of thirty-plus languages. Few speak English or are educated. Most are illiterate, even in their native language. They band together in balkanized communities and make them into their own little countries. Go there as an outsider and you're at risk.
Our schools and hospitals are overrun. My grand-kids can't get a proper education because teachers are busy trying to teach in multiple languages. Our crime rate is high. Our taxes are sky-high with the largest chunk of those taxes going to "immigrants" by way of taxpayer-funded benefits. Of course California, having a progressive Democrat super-majority, loves this because it buys them votes. Who cares about the California citizen? California hasn't been the "golden state" for a long time. I will be retiring in a few years, leaving this cesspool to live in a free state.
You can bleat your bleeding-heart BS all you want. The citizens of the US are not an ATM for anyone setting foot here. This rule is a good first step. It needs to be followed up with more. A lot more. And it can't be done soon enough. No matter what the BS artists in SF tell you.
Second; what gives an immigrant, illegal or not, the right to put one foot in my country and immediately be eligible for taxpayer-funded benefits?
Your masters did. They wanted lots of cheap flesh-robots for making profits for them and then they naturally enough don't want to pay for the maintenance (thats why there are no real robots), so you lot get to do it.
They probably also appreciate that while each generation of newly-arrived precariat are fighting each other for a foothold and over race, religion and whatever, they will be way too busy hating each other to get any political ideas.
They can even turn up the heat a little by underfunding schools and hospitals; watch you dogs fighting each other from inside their gated compounds and high-rises.
Dude, at any one moment there are people speaking 160 languages in Toronto. More in NYC. Most people think it enriches culture, except you, obviously.
When my great-grandparents immigrated to the US.....My grand-kids can't get a proper education because.....
So six generations of your family: 1) Great-Grandparents, 2) Grandparents, 3) Your Parents, 4) You, 5) Your children, 6) Your grandchildren.
I estimate that your great-grandparents landed about 150 years ago. Perhaps in the mid-1800's, possibly before enactment of the Naturalization Act of 1870.
"When my great-grandparents immigrated to the US they had to sign paperwork agreeing that they wouldn't be allowed taxpayer-funded benefits. They had to have employment lined up or the ability to be self-reliant. They had to pass a medical exam. They had to be able to speak, read, and write English. "
Taxpayer-funded benefits: which ones? Those were non-existent in back then.
They had to have employment lined up or the ability to be self-reliant. No, they didn't and generally couldn't. That would have been an almost impossible requirement to meet.
They had to pass a medical exam: a cursory examination on entry. Say ahh. The greatest risk was TB.
They had to be able to speak, read, and write English: Pure BS. Most immigrants from Europe, obviously excepting immigrants from the UK, did not speak, read or write English.
Compared to getting a Green Card getting Permanent Leave to Remain is a major chore. The big hurdle is the family income requirement -- you have to earn about 20K (pounds) a year or you can't stay in the UK.
The 'public charge' thing has always been in US immigration law. As with any regulations its never 100% cut and dried but the general sense is well known -- to receive 'immigration benefits' you have to be a net contributor to US society. The thing you've got to watch with the Trumpenfanatics is that they're subtly moving the goalposts, redefining what being a public charge is and applying the rules retroactively.
Incidentally, I have relatives that have moved to various countries from the UK (and one that moved to the UK from El Salvador) so I'm familiar with the various hoops that you get to jump through to get residency status. The US is actually pretty easy; its main problem is that its grossly oversubscribed (although our removal of the welcome mat might fix that....). I should also mention that just because you turn up in a country doesn't make you an immigrant; unless you're got the appropriate documentation you are just an alien -- a foreigner -- residing in the country who may be in or out of status.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019