So...Trump’s now going after legal immigrants.

[BluesLegend]

changes “could have important consequences for access to medical care and the health of millions of immigrants and their families.” An estimated 1 million noncitizens would lose their insurance, the study found.

Millions of immigrants are deadbeat mooching welfare losers???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Probably about as much as you help immigrants with their rent for a month annually.

Not a truck driver. Sorry.

You no doubt cover a few months of electric for you HUD neighbors though.

Probably, but not through any choice of my own. If it were up to me, HUD residents would be restricted to lower income housing in the inner-city, not in the suburbs.

Just holding you to your own standard.
If you could afford it, you wouldn't live in a HUD neighborhood. Maybe you should work harder to meet my standard. Since I'm better off than you, your neighborhood or school district should not get any services before mine, loser.

Nobody is safe from HUD. What HUD does is target areas for destruction, and then they send their lowlifes in to do the job. When the area is finally destroyed, HUD targets new areas.

Not to worry though, your time is coming.

Sure, loser. Everyone is to blame for your lot in life except yourself.

Of course. Blame me for your precious government destroying neighborhoods because it's so poetically correct.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They're legal, dope. They've worked to meet that standard.

Applying, filling out forms, and waiting to get on the dole isn't much work.

That is what the whole thread is about, changing the definition of what it means to be "legal." If they don't contribute, they don't stay.

No need to fling invective good man. I apologize if I insulted you.

The whole idea is insulting.

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

Why do you begrudge others for their struggles?

The programs are meant for our citizens..............You're writing checks for more debt............without the means to pay.............

Let the States decide...........If your state wants higher taxes to pay for it..............then do so...........just don't include other states....

Trump is pushing merit based immigration.............and this only applies up to 5 years.

The programs are meant for our citizens..

Obviously they're not if they qualify for them, dope.

LOL

Shouldn't be that way ........derp.

In your opinion.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Should there be means to kick out legal immigrants? People who met every standard under the law?

I personally see no difference between a legal immigrant and a citizen. Both have standing under the law.
The standards I've seen so far in this thread arent met by a good pecentage of the existing citizen population. Why hold others who worked very hard to get here to a higher standard?

Because they have loyalty to another culture, another people, another government and another nation.

I thought you were smarter than that, but apparently you are another feel good globalist.

They're legal, dope. They've worked to meet that standard.

Applying, filling out forms, and waiting to get on the dole isn't much work.

That is what the whole thread is about, changing the definition of what it means to be "legal." If they don't contribute, they don't stay.

No need to fling invective good man. I apologize if I insulted you.

The whole idea is insulting.

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

Why do you begrudge others for their struggles?

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

If they came here under a standard that says they can't collect government benefits and still become citizens, then they should be denied citizenship and sent home.

Wishful thinking.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not a truck driver. Sorry.

You no doubt cover a few months of electric for you HUD neighbors though.

Probably, but not through any choice of my own. If it were up to me, HUD residents would be restricted to lower income housing in the inner-city, not in the suburbs.

Just holding you to your own standard.
If you could afford it, you wouldn't live in a HUD neighborhood. Maybe you should work harder to meet my standard. Since I'm better off than you, your neighborhood or school district should not get any services before mine, loser.

Nobody is safe from HUD. What HUD does is target areas for destruction, and then they send their lowlifes in to do the job. When the area is finally destroyed, HUD targets new areas.

Not to worry though, your time is coming.

Sure, loser. Everyone is to blame for your lot in life except yourself.

Of course. Blame me for your precious government destroying neighborhoods because it's so poetically correct.

I'm only blaming you for all of your perceived slights aginst you that you blame on others. Always those less fortunate than yourself.

 

[Muhammed]

What a piece of trash he is.

Proposed Trump rule change could put millions of legal immigrants at risk of deportation

Currently, immigrants who rely on, or are expected to rely on, the government for more than half of their income are considered “public charges” and can be banned from entering the country or deported, even if they’re otherwise eligible for extended residency.

Immigrants who rely completely on welfare programs or long-term Medicaid benefits are typically considered public charges, but the Trump administration wants to extend those guidelines to include immigrants who use public housing, subsidies to help pay for health insurance, food stamps, income tax credits, the Children's Health Insurance Program and non-emergency uses of Medicaid, according to a White House draft obtained by The Washington Post.

A recent study by The New England Journal of Medicine found that the changes “could have important consequences for access to medical care and the health of millions of immigrants and their families.” An estimated 1 million noncitizens would lose their insurance, the study found.

What part of "America first" do you fail to comprehend?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because they have loyalty to another culture, another people, another government and another nation.

I thought you were smarter than that, but apparently you are another feel good globalist.

They're legal, dope. They've worked to meet that standard.

Applying, filling out forms, and waiting to get on the dole isn't much work.

That is what the whole thread is about, changing the definition of what it means to be "legal." If they don't contribute, they don't stay.

No need to fling invective good man. I apologize if I insulted you.

The whole idea is insulting.

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

Why do you begrudge others for their struggles?

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

If they came here under a standard that says they can't collect government benefits and still become citizens, then they should be denied citizenship and sent home.

Wishful thinking.

Yes, keeping out low skilled foreigners is wishful thinking.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They're legal, dope. They've worked to meet that standard.

Applying, filling out forms, and waiting to get on the dole isn't much work.

That is what the whole thread is about, changing the definition of what it means to be "legal." If they don't contribute, they don't stay.

No need to fling invective good man. I apologize if I insulted you.

The whole idea is insulting.

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

Why do you begrudge others for their struggles?

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

If they came here under a standard that says they can't collect government benefits and still become citizens, then they should be denied citizenship and sent home.

Wishful thinking.

Yes, keeping out low skilled foreigners is wishful thinking.

Who says they're low skilled?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Applying, filling out forms, and waiting to get on the dole isn't much work.

That is what the whole thread is about, changing the definition of what it means to be "legal." If they don't contribute, they don't stay.

No need to fling invective good man. I apologize if I insulted you.

The whole idea is insulting.

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

Why do you begrudge others for their struggles?

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

If they came here under a standard that says they can't collect government benefits and still become citizens, then they should be denied citizenship and sent home.

Wishful thinking.

Yes, keeping out low skilled foreigners is wishful thinking.

Who says they're low skilled?

Who says they're low skilled?

The OP.


Currently, immigrants who rely on, or are expected to rely on, the government for more than half of their income are considered “public charges” and can be banned from entering the country or deported, even if they’re otherwise eligible for extended residency.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

We have no means to kick out unproductive white trash.

Should there be means to kick out legal immigrants? People who met every standard under the law?

I personally see no difference between a legal immigrant and a citizen. Both have standing under the law.
The standards I've seen so far in this thread arent met by a good pecentage of the existing citizen population. Why hold others who worked very hard to get here to a higher standard?

Because they have loyalty to another culture, another people, another government and another nation.

I thought you were smarter than that, but apparently you are another feel good globalist.

They're legal, dope. They've worked to meet that standard.

Applying, filling out forms, and waiting to get on the dole isn't much work.

That is what the whole thread is about, changing the definition of what it means to be "legal." If they don't contribute, they don't stay.

No need to fling invective good man. I apologize if I insulted you.

The whole idea is insulting.

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

Why do you begrudge others for their struggles?

Not a lot we can do with our own worthless liberals. But we can stop any foreign ones from coming here.

 

[Gracie]

What a piece of trash he is.

Proposed Trump rule change could put millions of legal immigrants at risk of deportation

Currently, immigrants who rely on, or are expected to rely on, the government for more than half of their income are considered “public charges” and can be banned from entering the country or deported, even if they’re otherwise eligible for extended residency.

Immigrants who rely completely on welfare programs or long-term Medicaid benefits are typically considered public charges, but the Trump administration wants to extend those guidelines to include immigrants who use public housing, subsidies to help pay for health insurance, food stamps, income tax credits, the Children's Health Insurance Program and non-emergency uses of Medicaid, according to a White House draft obtained by The Washington Post.

A recent study by The New England Journal of Medicine found that the changes “could have important consequences for access to medical care and the health of millions of immigrants and their families.” An estimated 1 million noncitizens would lose their insurance, the study found.

Yay for Trump!!!
Maybe for those homeless, hungry, ill, they will be able to get much needed help instead of being pushed to the back of the proverbial line.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The whole idea is insulting.

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

Why do you begrudge others for their struggles?

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

If they came here under a standard that says they can't collect government benefits and still become citizens, then they should be denied citizenship and sent home.

Wishful thinking.

Yes, keeping out low skilled foreigners is wishful thinking.

Who says they're low skilled?

Who says they're low skilled?

The OP.


Currently, immigrants who rely on, or are expected to rely on, the government for more than half of their income are considered “public charges” and can be banned from entering the country or deported, even if they’re otherwise eligible for extended residency.

Where does it say "low skilled", dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Should there be means to kick out legal immigrants? People who met every standard under the law?

I personally see no difference between a legal immigrant and a citizen. Both have standing under the law.
The standards I've seen so far in this thread arent met by a good pecentage of the existing citizen population. Why hold others who worked very hard to get here to a higher standard?

Because they have loyalty to another culture, another people, another government and another nation.

I thought you were smarter than that, but apparently you are another feel good globalist.

They're legal, dope. They've worked to meet that standard.

Applying, filling out forms, and waiting to get on the dole isn't much work.

That is what the whole thread is about, changing the definition of what it means to be "legal." If they don't contribute, they don't stay.

No need to fling invective good man. I apologize if I insulted you.

The whole idea is insulting.

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

Why do you begrudge others for their struggles?

Not a lot we can do with our own worthless liberals. But we can stop any foreign ones from coming here.

That's it, loser. Completely avoid the point.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

If they came here under a standard that says they can't collect government benefits and still become citizens, then they should be denied citizenship and sent home.

Wishful thinking.

Yes, keeping out low skilled foreigners is wishful thinking.

Who says they're low skilled?

Who says they're low skilled?

The OP.


Currently, immigrants who rely on, or are expected to rely on, the government for more than half of their income are considered “public charges” and can be banned from entering the country or deported, even if they’re otherwise eligible for extended residency.

Where does it say "low skilled", dope.

If you " rely on, or are expected to rely on, the government for more than half of their income"
your skill level isn't very high. Idiot.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Because they have loyalty to another culture, another people, another government and another nation.

I thought you were smarter than that, but apparently you are another feel good globalist.

They're legal, dope. They've worked to meet that standard.

Applying, filling out forms, and waiting to get on the dole isn't much work.

That is what the whole thread is about, changing the definition of what it means to be "legal." If they don't contribute, they don't stay.

No need to fling invective good man. I apologize if I insulted you.

The whole idea is insulting.

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

Why do you begrudge others for their struggles?

Not a lot we can do with our own worthless liberals. But we can stop any foreign ones from coming here.

That's it, loser. Completely avoid the point.

That is the point halfwit. We deal with our own losers . There’s absolutely no reason to import more.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wishful thinking.

Yes, keeping out low skilled foreigners is wishful thinking.

Who says they're low skilled?

Who says they're low skilled?

The OP.


Currently, immigrants who rely on, or are expected to rely on, the government for more than half of their income are considered “public charges” and can be banned from entering the country or deported, even if they’re otherwise eligible for extended residency.

Where does it say "low skilled", dope.

If you " rely on, or are expected to rely on, the government for more than half of their income"
your skill level isn't very high. Idiot.

Not necessarily, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They're legal, dope. They've worked to meet that standard.

Applying, filling out forms, and waiting to get on the dole isn't much work.

That is what the whole thread is about, changing the definition of what it means to be "legal." If they don't contribute, they don't stay.

No need to fling invective good man. I apologize if I insulted you.

The whole idea is insulting.

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

Why do you begrudge others for their struggles?

Not a lot we can do with our own worthless liberals. But we can stop any foreign ones from coming here.

That's it, loser. Completely avoid the point.

That is the point halfwit. We deal with our own losers . There’s absolutely no reason to import more.

That wasn't the point I made that you avoided, dope.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, keeping out low skilled foreigners is wishful thinking.

Who says they're low skilled?

Who says they're low skilled?

The OP.


Currently, immigrants who rely on, or are expected to rely on, the government for more than half of their income are considered “public charges” and can be banned from entering the country or deported, even if they’re otherwise eligible for extended residency.

Where does it say "low skilled", dope.

If you " rely on, or are expected to rely on, the government for more than half of their income"
your skill level isn't very high. Idiot.

Not necessarily, dope.

If you're not skilled enough, or wealthy enough, to support yourself, don't move here. Simple.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Probably, but not through any choice of my own. If it were up to me, HUD residents would be restricted to lower income housing in the inner-city, not in the suburbs.

Just holding you to your own standard.
If you could afford it, you wouldn't live in a HUD neighborhood. Maybe you should work harder to meet my standard. Since I'm better off than you, your neighborhood or school district should not get any services before mine, loser.

Nobody is safe from HUD. What HUD does is target areas for destruction, and then they send their lowlifes in to do the job. When the area is finally destroyed, HUD targets new areas.

Not to worry though, your time is coming.

Sure, loser. Everyone is to blame for your lot in life except yourself.

Of course. Blame me for your precious government destroying neighborhoods because it's so poetically correct.

I'm only blaming you for all of your perceived slights aginst you that you blame on others. Always those less fortunate than yourself.

I don't blame them, I blame our government. You don't blame the ants if a child drops a scoop of ice cream off his cone on the sidewalk.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Applying, filling out forms, and waiting to get on the dole isn't much work.

That is what the whole thread is about, changing the definition of what it means to be "legal." If they don't contribute, they don't stay.

No need to fling invective good man. I apologize if I insulted you.

The whole idea is insulting.

You're suggesting we hold those who came here legally to a standard we don't hold for our own citizens.

Why do you begrudge others for their struggles?

Not a lot we can do with our own worthless liberals. But we can stop any foreign ones from coming here.

That's it, loser. Completely avoid the point.

That is the point halfwit. We deal with our own losers . There’s absolutely no reason to import more.

That wasn't the point I made that you avoided, dope.

The only “point” you possibly had was we have bad people born here and that’s the level we should use for allowing immigrants to come in. It sure as hell wasnt to bring in the best but if they line up with our worst bring them on over.