Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Trump Administration Expected to Propose Limiting Citizenship for Legal Immigrants

posted by martyb on Thursday August 16 2018, @09:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the What-would-Emma-Lazarus-say? dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

CBS News reports:

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.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Trump Administration Expected to Propose Limiting Citizenship for Legal Immigrants | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 214 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:48PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:48PM (#722261)

    Cost of Nuclear Weapon Stockpile has been put a $5.48 trillion.

  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:53PM (4 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday August 16 2018, @03:53PM (#722268) Homepage Journal

    That's an already paid cost. The upkeep is nothing even close to that.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:32PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:32PM (#722356)

      Well well you slimy bastard, let us compare the upkeep of our nuclear stockpile vs. NATO. So $20 billion average yearly (low ball estimate) vs. $350 million.

      Last I checked a million is 1000x less than a billion, so 1/17500th of the budget costs. You lose again! What a maroon, would someone feed this guy to the sea bass?

      The United States maintains a large and diverse nuclear arsenal to deter potential adversaries and to assure U.S. allies and other security partners. The United States will spend at least $179 billion over the nine fiscal years of 2010-2018 on its nuclear arsenal, averaging $20 billion per year, with costs increasing from $16 billion to $25 billion per year over that timeframe. This estimate by no means, however, includes the full costs of maintaining America's nuclear deterrent. The $179 billion includes most of the direct costs of nuclear weapons and strategic launchers, such as missiles and submarines, as well as a majority of the costs of military personnel responsible for maintaining, operating, and executing nuclear missions. This estimate, however, excludes many other essential functions directly related to nuclear operations, because those numbers are not readily identified in current budget documents. Moreover, these costs include no money for the eventual retirement of these systems, or support for veteran pensions or healthcare.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:55PM (1 child)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday August 16 2018, @05:55PM (#722374) Homepage Journal

        So you're saying we should give up near absolute certainty of security for $20 billion in exchange for a bunch of allies that for the most part hate us and refuse to contribute even the pittance they've agreed to for $350 million? You're right, we should definitely do that.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:06PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16 2018, @06:06PM (#722382)

          Yup you are the dumbest person on here. Dumb dumb dumb. If there was a dumb contest you'd lose cause you're so dumb you'd fuck that up too!

          Git smarter, git educated, git world experience, git anything other than what you've been doing cause its made you dumber than https://www.spanglercandy.com/candy-store/dum-dum-pops-bulk-lollipops [spanglercandy.com]

      • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday August 17 2018, @11:09AM

        by deimtee (3272) on Friday August 17 2018, @11:09AM (#722755) Journal

        Economics is more complicated than that. If the US gov spends $20B internally on maintaining nukes, that money goes somewhere. Nuke techs get to keep their jobs and pay taxes, companies that contract some of the services stay in business employing people.
        I'm pretty sure that looking after their nukes is one of things that the USA won't outsource to China or India, so that $20B goes straight back into the domestic economy, and is probably mostly reclaimed through taxes and an improved economy.

        And before you start claiming 'broken window fallacy', I know that maintaining nukes is a net negative, those factors are ameliorative. The true expense would still be much less than $20B.

        --
        If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.