SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Trump administration is expected to issue a proposal in coming weeks that would make it harder for legal immigrants to become citizens or get green cards if they have ever used a range of popular public welfare programs, including Obamacare, four sources with knowledge of the plan told NBC News.
The move, which would not need congressional approval, is part of White House senior adviser Stephen Miller's plan to limit the number of migrants who obtain legal status in the U.S. each year.
[...] Though its effects could be far-reaching, the proposal to limit citizenship to immigrants who have not used public assistance does not appear to need congressional approval. As the Clinton administration did in 1999, the Trump administration would be redefining the term "public charge," which first emerged in immigration law in the 1800s in order to shield the U.S. from burdening too many immigrants who could not contribute to society.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @11:33AM (42 children)
How many left wing protestors chanting "No Borders, No Wall, No USA at all" have renounced their citizenship? The UNHRC say nationality is a human right, for protestors who openly renounce this human right, what good argument could their be against revocation of their citizenship?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @11:37AM (21 children)
you're intellectually dishonest, or just not intellectual.
You know damn well there is a difference between advocating the abolishment of statism, and voiding your rights while still living in a state.
You're trolling, because i can't imagine you are genuinely this stupid.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @11:45AM (2 children)
No there isn't, the loss of rights is a consequence of abolition. To a rational person, these are the same outcome so why are you accusing me of intellectual dishonesty?
I'm pointing out the political position of leftist protesters, are you sure it's my position that is "stupid" and not theirs?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @02:28PM (1 child)
So you are conflating the consequence of a thing, with the thing itself.
Confirmed: you're just not intellectual.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @02:50PM
Why don't you put your hand in a fire or hurl yourself off a tall building?
Is this culled from a larger comedy routine you have?
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 16 2018, @12:06PM (17 children)
Grab a mirror. You would shit all over yourself if Texans started invading Sweeden en masse and voting out socialist policies but you're in favor of it here for no reason other than you dislike the demographic breakdown of the US. You are a hypocrite.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday August 16 2018, @12:52PM (6 children)
Pretty sure the Texans would be in for a serious shit fight in that situation. Sweden's already earmarked by Russia...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 16 2018, @01:35PM
Yeah, it'd be hilarious.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @02:40PM (4 children)
Monkeys slinging shit? Pale monkeys from Sweden? No problem. Texans know how to sling shit too!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:30PM (3 children)
Now if you just knew how to sling a football...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:38PM (2 children)
WTF? You're spamming for the Titans now? Surely you haven't sunk that low, Buzzard!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:56PM (1 child)
Fuck no! Boomer Sooner, bitch!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:14PM
Boomer? That's the sound of my big johnson hitting the floor. You want to hear it sooner? Sounds perverse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @02:11PM (4 children)
Pretty sure Texas does not share a physical border with *Sweden* (Not Sweeden)
Also: pretty sure Texan is not a Nationality.
Your trolling skills are poor, kamrade.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 16 2018, @02:43PM
You could safely make that proclamation on almost any street corner in Austin. For your own safety, don't try it some place like Lubbock, or on the Gulf Coast. Parts of Dallas may be safe, but you'll want to listen to the people's accents before making the attempt. If they sound Texan, better keep your mouth shut tight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @02:54PM (1 child)
"Also: pretty sure Texan is not a Nationality."
depends on who you talk to. "Republic of Texas" and all...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:45PM
The only state that was its own country and joined the Union by treaty, as any Texan will tell you
(whether you want to hear it or not).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:10PM
*comrade
Muphry's Law [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:08PM (4 children)
Most Texans couldn't find Sweden, much less spell it correctly.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:41PM (3 children)
Sweden is an irrelevant country.
Its only impact on world affairs has been to neutralize the leader of Wikileaks through their pussy laws.
They are a weak, effeminate nation, and since they never fight in wars (they let Hitler go to town), I guess that's fine. Until the invaders are let in by invitation. The castrated Swedes are powerless to defend themselves.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:08PM (2 children)
I guess you missed that part where they were the pivotal power in turning around the 30 Years' War [wikipedia.org].
Granted, that was awhile ago, but back then they included Finland, Estonia, and a good chunk of Norway as well. Now they have a population a little bit bigger than New York City; how influential do you expect them to be in world affairs? Should Ohio be a world leader?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:07PM
I certainly don't expect little Sweden to be a leader in world affairs. What is laughable is that the Swedes themselves are always going on about their moral superiority over the rest of the world. Well, if you are a non-factor in world affairs, it is a piece of cake to never dirty your hands. The US does all the work and they reap the benefits... while never admitting to it.
The Swedes have enjoyed their good fortune for so long that they have become deluded about its cause and what it takes to maintain it.
I agree that 1,000 years ago the Swedes were fighters--the most ruthless. You say 400 yrs ago they were something as well. I am judging them by the past 100 yrs. They have gone to hell and depend on others to fight for them. They are weak and brainwashed into being that way by their government.
Now the Finns on the other hand are fighters. Being under Soviet threat for decades, they know that bullies will take your stuff if you don't fight. Same for the FSU Baltic Republics.
(Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:26PM
You said Norway, we love Norway. We'd love to see more immigration from Norway. But Sweden, no thank you! Something is rotten in the state of Sweden. Look what happened in Sweden the other day. Masked gangs going around burning cars. And they burned over 100 cars. Horrific!!! lewrockwell.com/2018/08/tyler-durden/sweden-is-burning-migrant-gangs-unleash-coordinated-fire-bomb-rampage-across-multiple-cities [lewrockwell.com]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:00PM (1 child)
Aside from everything else that's trollish about your post, this isn't what the article is about. I'll admit the headline is pretty bad, but the summary explains it's about limiting who can become a citizen; it has nothing to do with taking away citizenship from those who already have it, or making a second class of citizens.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:47PM
If you read the subject of the comment you replied to, you may note the subject is "Doesn't go far enough". If you read the comment you replied to, you'd see revocation would be limited to people who want to abolish the USA.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:20PM (5 children)
How many left wing protestors chanting "No Borders, No Wall, No USA at all" have renounced their citizenship?
Since zero people have ever chanted that the answer is undefined.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:40PM
Would you like to see the video before making your definitive claim?
(Score: 3, Touché) by VLM on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:48PM
I've seen the video on TV; I'm not bothered too much because of the implied endorsement that white men in the USA should rule over the entire population of the world immigrated into the USA. Not exactly the demographic I'd pin as hard core Trump supporters, but they are kinda stupid so they likely don't even realize it.
Immigration activism during the Trump Presidency is implied support of white supremacy; I'm not too bothered by that. You don't want to live in a country run by a hispanic woman, immigrate to America run by a white male patriarchy where life is vastly better for some reason. I'm not sure the idiots yelling about it understand what they're actually supporting. Its richly hilarious for those who understand.
Immigration activism is literally analogous to "Detroit elects a black mayor, everyone with motivation, intelligence, money, or strength should move outta the city to the nearest white-run 'burb as fast as possible". Endorsing immigration is literally endorsing "Hispanic version of white flight".
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:43PM (2 children)
You're not alt-left, you're a big Crooked Hillary fan. What folks here call central-left. And Crooked Hillary is a big Open Borders person, she doesn't do that chant. But our alt-left folks say it all the time. And they said it last weekend at Unite the Right 2. Where, by the way, the crowd was MUCH SMALLER than for my Inauguration. Because I wasn't there!!!! breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/12/watch-antifa-chants-death-to-america-no-borders-no-wall-no-usa-at-all [breitbart.com]
(Score: 1, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 16 2018, @07:25PM (1 child)
Fake news! Those are crisis actors, paid protestors by the Koch Brothers to stage a false flag operation to smear the left!
Wait a minute, I'm not a conservative!
The video evidence I just viewed with my own eyes was sufficient to convince me that I was wrong and I concede the point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @08:36PM
You'll get a chuckle from this one - who says the left can't meme? [dailymail.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:34PM (11 children)
AC doesn't understand, they mean we should roll tanks thru the failed state of Mexico, hell keep going south till you hit Antarctica, taking over the shitty governments all the way.
It seems pretty damn self evident that the entire continents of central and south America wouldn't be illegally invading the US because we do such a bad job of governing them... they are voting with their feet that they'd prefer to be ruled over by white men in D.C. than the corrupt shitbirds in their former native countries. Plenty of the locals would rather invade and imperialistically take over countries that serve tacos than the middle eastern "food".
Some sort of lebensraum / north american alliance thing seems inevitable on a long term basis. At some point, when the last Mexican leaves Mexico to illegally invade Texas, we're gonna need more space, and everyone worth anything with any agency or intelligence already is here, so taking over shouldn't be too hard...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 16 2018, @04:43PM (10 children)
It would certainly solve the illegal immigration problem if "there" suddenly became "here". Plus, mas tequila [youtube.com].
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:06PM (9 children)
It would also help with the expense problem if every southerner who moves north costs the locals $1M/lifetime in social services, but comes with $2M/lifetime equivalent in dirt cheap crude oil or whatevs.
"Magic Dirt" is a leftist blindness, or anti-science religious view, that claims there's no reason other than magic why dirt on the north bank of some river is infinitely more valuable to live on than dirt on the southern bank of the same river, therefore its a human right for all humans regardless of place of birth to immigrate and live on the good magic dirt. Obviously, in the real world outside leftist fantasy world, the difference in value is who governs the dirt. And if you want to improve lives of everyone, obviously its pretty stupid to move all the people onto the "good" "magic" dirt on the north bank of the river when it would be trivial and cheap to merely extend the good governance south... maybe all the way to Cape Horn?
At some point, solely on the basis of fairness, every immigrant sent north should come with a border moving 40 acres south; it only seems fair. Or every truck full of immigrants should be matched by an APC or M1A1 tank advancing south. Sure, send a family of ten north, we'll send a paratrooper squad of ten to Mexico City. It only seems fair. This fairness is something often ignored when leftists complain about USA interference in our southern neighbors; if all your good people hadn't invaded the USA we wouldn't have any justification to interfere, but they did, so tough cookies enjoy the CIA running your shitty little country instead of your own people. If you don't like imperialism try not having your people run away and try not having a shitty government of your own, otherwise enjoy the CIA running the place. Eventually it just makes more sense to have Congress directly run the place rather than State Dept and CIA.
If, as seems to be the case, the immigration process seems to involve sending their best (however bad that might be) to the USA, whoever is left behind should not be much of a challenge to the worlds biggest military. We could have tanks on the bluffs overlooking Cape Horn in maybe a couple weeks; literally depends how fast we can drive.
I don't think the locals would mind "Yeah the bad news is we're here and we're staying permanently. The good news is you'll be as rich as Americans without having to move up north." Not really anticipating much of an insurgency.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:53PM (8 children)
You should look into this thing called "history."
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:26PM (7 children)
Seriously dude, you're claiming Mexico would be just like Iraq because one third of Mexico is Sunni, one third Shiite and one third Kurd all who hate each other and only the actions of the hyper violent strongman dictator was keeping the peace?
Mexico under USA control would probably look like a somewhat poorer version of New Mexico.
The Chiapas region would take some careful handling. I wonder if it would settle down if we took over Mexico City and simply stopped advancing south at the border of Chiapas. Wait a generation until blood cools down then much later on we would "git merge" the Chiapas branch into the Greater American Union or the God Emperors Province or whatever we'd end up calling it.
An interesting side issue is the local narco terrorist type organizations. I suspect a couple hellfire missiles would clean them up rather quickly.
An intelligent way to invade and annex Mexico would be to chop off the head of the insurgency BEFORE fighting the legacy government ground troops. Interesting to think of the narco trucks getting hellfired into oblivion before our tanks and APCs cross the border and start fighting the legacy government. Probably with 20:20 hindsight this is how "we" should have handled the Gulf War invasions. Some known ultra-extremist iman would in retrospect have been a much better cruise missile target in 2001 than some mere government telephone exchange building or the other shit they targeted as if middle eastern armies are "real opponents". Ine the long run Mr "Death to the Great Satan USA" is a much harder target to neutralize than some rando opfor battalion commander or some rando T-72 tank platoon, the lesson of the GWOT is we neutralized the targets in the wrong order...
I mean, even if we pull back and don't invade on land with tanks and APCs, just the prep work of literally vaporizing the narcos in the sense of wiping out what could become a future insurgency would be kind of a gift to civilization right there, regardless if the actual land invasion were called off later.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday August 17 2018, @12:37AM (6 children)
Mexico would be probably be very much like Afghanistan. Afghanistan is easy to conquer. Just about everyone has done it, at one time or another. And everyone that's done it has come to regret it. Taking territory is one thing - holding it is something very different. Attempting to hold Mexico would destroy everything left of the USA.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday August 17 2018, @03:02AM (5 children)
Doubtless the drug cartels and the corrupt gov't would resist, but (speaking from long observation of SoCal's first-generation immigrants) the average Mexican would just shrug and life would go on as before.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday August 17 2018, @03:24AM (4 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday August 17 2018, @04:35PM (3 children)
"In the longer term, every injustice, every problem, every insult would be blamed on the occupying power, justly or not."
Yeah, but if the average Mexican hasn't risen up and done something against the current corrupt mess, what makes you think they'll be any more ambitious when life gets generally better/easier under U.S. rule?
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday August 17 2018, @09:25PM (2 children)
Of course, another prediction that failed to come true was that it would make them better off. Wars don't really work that way. Blowing stuff up is not a constructive action. Yes, occasional, carefully planned demolition is required - but warfare brings demolition with neither quality, and it destroys wealth, it doesn't build it. So how do you propose to see an *actual* improvement in conditions for them to theoretically be grateful for? Pouring in billions of dollars in infrastructure investments? Worked real well in Iraq, Afghanistan. Oh the money will get spent, and it will benefit someone.
But it has pretty much *never* worked out the way y'all imagine here.
The chances of forming an effective North American Union that didn't just tear itself apart with internal conflict would be much higher were it to be assembled consensually. Of course there's no instant gratification there; and I'd be opposed to instant gratification on it, even consensual union with Mexico would probably be fatal at the moment, in my opinion. But it's not at all inconceivable that such an outcome could be decades, perhaps even years, down the road; given the right policies and developments in each country of course.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday August 17 2018, @10:29PM
Iraq is a very different situation, tho, even ignoring the complication of Islam and that it is based in concepts of a warrior class superior to everyone else, and the fundamental inferiority of all kaffir (factors Mexico lacks). Further, Iraq isn't smack up against our southern border and entangled in local trade agreements, both being where we're forced to pay attention to it. (We could mostly ignore Iraq and be none the worse.)
Mexico is really a nation of native Indians subjugated by a mostly-purebred-Spaniard ruling class, and it's so to this day. And it hasn't exactly risen up and thrown off that ruling class. Boss Man is in charge and who that is doesn't seem to concern villagers much. Mexican nationalism is mostly a myth promulgated by La Raza socialists. (I'd guess were it determined by a vote, most Mexicans would vote for their state to join the U.S., with all the benefits thereto.)
I expect the only official resistance would come from that ruling class. And at this point that's rather fragmented. Probably more unofficially from the drug cartels, which are hardly a majority of the population, nor are they a lawful government, but they do presently have most of the guns.
Meanwhile, what happens when Mexico tips wholly into being a failed state? Cuz if the cartels continue to run things as they please, that's where it's headed. I've heard reports that the central gov't has lost all control over most of the country. If resistance was in the cards, Mexicans would already be resisting this. But nope, they do nothing to preserve their own country. Fear rules, and peasants keep their heads down.
And at some point that's going to become our concern, if only because it's spilling over into our territory, the U.S. drug trade being the cash cow that keeps those Mexican cartels going.
I don't want the burden of administering Mexico, either benevolently or as an overlord; we don't need Puerto Rico's giant cousin sucking at the federal tit, and there's some benefit in having a very large buffer state between us and the rest of Latin America. But I think at some point we'll be forced into taking it on, and that would be better done on our terms than on terms thrust upon us.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday August 19 2018, @01:18PM
Here we are circling back around to my position.
The natives don't care in either the north or south. Nobody likes gang rule in the south except the gangs and they are small enough to be eliminated. A huge fraction of the south sees moving north either for themselves or their relatives to be a great idea. One political party in the north is trying to eliminate the concept of borders.
We're talking about the border between north and south Dakota, not east and west Berlin. A handful of criminal gangs and legacy politicians will fight to the death and the military can take care of it. The rest of the population is like "whatevs".
Now there would be no benefit to merging north and south Dakota, but I think there would be financial benefits the population would enjoy to merging N.A. or whatever the annexation of Mexico would be called.