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: 3, Interesting) by darkfeline on Thursday August 16 2018, @07:16PM (3 children)
Serious question, not trolling, what is wrong with that?
As a US citizen, I think the US government's primary responsibility is to US citizens, not to non-US citizens. If the US has spare aid, I would rather that aid go to fellow US citizens, even if they are Republicans (ha ha, only serious), than to some non US citizen.
If you as a FOO citizen are fucked, then quite frankly, that's a problem between you and FOO government. The US may provide aid at our discretion, but I don't see how we have any obligation to help out all of the poor and suffering people in the world.
Also, you are suggesting that all legal and/or illegal immigrants are refugees. I find that hard to believe. There must be some proportion of young male "refugees" come to seek better opportunities, like Europe has experienced. They are not running from violence, they are ditching their country which their ancestors ran into the ground to seek a better life in a country which hasn't been run into the ground (yet). They are welcome to keep their problems in their country.
Also, accepting immigrants has a very real cost in damage to society. I need to find the citation, but the phenomenon is quite simple. When a society accepts immigrants, the immigrants can either integrate into society, or they refuse to integrate, forming their own micro-culture and thus fragmenting and weakening the overall society. There have been a number of cases in history of this happening. Historically, America has been successful precisely because all of our immigrants integrated: they became primarily American and secondarily Italian/British/Chinese/etc. However, increasingly modern immigrants refuse to integrate and demand that they be treated differently than other Americans (cultural identity, etc.). Quite simply, this will destroy US society. In fact, history has shown that it is unstoppable, despite the efforts of the original citizens, so I guess there's no point in us trying either?
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday August 16 2018, @08:09PM (2 children)
You just sent somebody to their death, when you had plenty of resources to keep them alive. A lot of people find that morally objectionable.
I think you're operating from a mentality where the basics of living (food, clothing, housing, etc) are scarce and hard to come by in the US, when in fact we have substantial surpluses of all of those, and also the capacity to make more of them (a capacity that is increased by immigrants looking for work to do). And if you're worried about money, don't be: We have about 8 times the GDP necessary to ensure everybody currently in the US lives at at least poverty level. As in, we could probably take in about 10-20 million people before you'd even notice.
Are you obligated to give out food when you have twice as much as you're going to eat and some starving guy comes up to you asking for a bite? No, you aren't. But it sure would seem like the compassionate and reasonable thing to do, rather than throwing your surplus in the trash so the starving guy can maybe dig it out later.
The people that are currently the center of the immigration controversies are mostly folks who have applied for political asylum, a.k.a. claiming to be refugees. That is in no small part because things have gotten substantially worse in Central America over the last couple of decades, which in part is because of US policies in that region.
Or, alternately, the US has been successful precisely because each of the various kinds of people who arrived brought their own ideas and perspectives and culture with them, and historically when different cultures meet there's a bit of a cultural and technological flowering that comes from those ideas being exchanged. For instance, you don't get rock'n'roll without a lot of different cultures mixing together, and for other benefits of immigration all you have to do is visit a grocery store to see what a wide variety of things you can eat that the culture your grandparents belonged to hadn't even considered making.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday August 20 2018, @02:29AM (1 child)
>A lot of people find that morally objectionable.
Here's what I find morally objectionable. I cannot in good conscience go to one of the homeless US citizens in my town/city and tell them that we provided aid to refugees and that (s)he should sleep proud on the sidewalk tonight knowing that we helped a foreigner avoid death in their country.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday August 20 2018, @04:01AM
We have both the space and the cash necessary to house every homeless person in America, and millions of immigrants. The only reason those are competing interests is because of an artificial scarcity imposed to benefit banks and landlords at the expense of everybody else.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.