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

[eagle1462010]

The draft executive order would dramatically reorder longstanding policy regarding admissions, adjustment of status, deportation, and sponsor reimbursement. Among the key changes contemplated:

• Redefining “public charge” and “means-tested public benefits” to span a much wider variety of federal programs. The draft order refers to all “public benefits for which eligibility or amount is determined in any way on the basis of income, resources or financial aid.” Though rulemaking might narrow its scope, this definition could include a wide variety of federal programs such as school lunches, college financial aid, home heating assistance, and public health services that are not included in the welfare law’s means-tested definition.

• Deporting legal permanent residents for using benefits. Under current interpretation, green-card holders may become deportable as public charges only if they use cash welfare or are institutionalized in long-term care funded by the government. (Under the welfare law, they can only be deported as public charges within their first five years of U.S. residency.) If implemented as written in the leaked executive order, legal immigrants could be ordered deported for using a wide variety of benefits, potentially including food and nutrition assistance, federally subsidized health insurance through Medicaid or the ACA, and education benefits.
• Refusing to admit prospective immigrants who could become public charges. The executive order could also exclude large numbers of people who are otherwise eligible from being admitted as LPRs. As written, the order could be interpreted to make a high-school degree or better a prerequisite for admission or adjustment to a green card, for instance, or having a certain level of assets. The result could be restrictions on low-income or less well-educated immigrants from entering via some family reunification channels. And some people who are already in the United States—for instance nonimmigrants married to a U.S. citizen—would be unable to adjust to LPR status.
• Seeking repayment of benefits from sponsors. The draft order also instructs federal agencies to request reimbursement for benefits used by legal immigrants. (The welfare law currently allows agencies to collect benefits used by LPRs who have not become citizens or who have not worked for at least ten years.) The government would need to determine the cost of benefits used by each immigrant, locate his or her sponsor, send a notice requesting payment, and ultimately pursue the sponsor legally or hire a collection agency.

 

[Coyote]

That statement, coming from someone who automatically sides with a lying president is pretty ironic.

If someone makes a mistake on an application is it a lie or a mistake? Note - Melania Trump has been accused of lying on her visa. Would that make her ineligible for citizenship under these new rules?

It creates the potential to comb through looking for minor errors as an excuse to strip citizenship - and that is worrisome. Citizenship HAS been stripped if someone has lied about pretty major stuff - like criminal records, being a member of a terrorist organization etc. This has the potential to go beyond that and go back indefinately in a person's background for what could be very minor stuff. I imagine it could be used to silence opposition too....a naturalized citizen speaks out against the Trump Administration - let's look at his documents....

Melania is a wealthy model that married a billionaire, not some fucking tomato picker that's going to suck up welfare funds.

Oh wait. So if a wealthy model lies on her application she gets a free pass, but if if a tomato picker does he gets deported?

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.

Do you have a link to your claim, because I can't find anything on Google about her lying about anything.

And even if she did, does anybody really think a billionaire's wife wasn't going to be approved for citizenship for some reason? If that's unfair I'm sorry; the world is unfair. People like them are good for our taxes. Poor immigrants are not.

The better question is why would she lie?

Why would anyone?

 

[Confounding]

So...it's ok for some people to break the law based on class and social status?

I'm not even saying she didn't tell the truth. I've never seen credible proof of that. I'm just saying to me even if she did it's different because there's no way she was going to be denied and she's a benefit to our tax system. If she did lie it probably would have been some attempt to expedite the process. Honestly I just don't care because she is not hurting us.

 

[EverCurious]

I accept your moral argument. Now I have a question for you. Would it or would it not be better for our economy to get rid of those people?

No.

As it was pointed out, it has always been the case that those who completely rely on welfare are subject to possible deportation. No argument there. These are people who work but might use small amounts of assistance such as subsidies to help purchase health insurance or CHIP for examp,e.

It's not "small amounts" - half their income is from welfare according to your article.

 

[Confounding]

Melania is a wealthy model that married a billionaire, not some fucking tomato picker that's going to suck up welfare funds.

Oh wait. So if a wealthy model lies on her application she gets a free pass, but if if a tomato picker does he gets deported?

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.

Do you have a link to your claim, because I can't find anything on Google about her lying about anything.

And even if she did, does anybody really think a billionaire's wife wasn't going to be approved for citizenship for some reason? If that's unfair I'm sorry; the world is unfair. People like them are good for our taxes. Poor immigrants are not.

The better question is why would she lie?

Why would anyone?

Can you post that proof?

I agree that I don't really see why a billionaire's wife would need to lie to get citizenship. She was never going to be denied, ever.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Melania is a wealthy model that married a billionaire, not some fucking tomato picker that's going to suck up welfare funds.

Oh wait. So if a wealthy model lies on her application she gets a free pass, but if if a tomato picker does he gets deported?

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.

Do you have a link to your claim, because I can't find anything on Google about her lying about anything.

And even if she did, does anybody really think a billionaire's wife wasn't going to be approved for citizenship for some reason? If that's unfair I'm sorry; the world is unfair. People like them are good for our taxes. Poor immigrants are not.

The better question is why would she lie?

Why would anyone?

Why? Why would anybody lie? Because they have something to hide. WTF would a successful woman like her have to hide?

 

[Coyote]

..

I accept your moral argument. Now I have a question for you. Would it or would it not be better for our economy to get rid of those people?

No.

As it was pointed out, it has always been the case that those who completely rely on welfare are subject to possible deportation. No argument there. These are people who work but might use small amounts of assistance such as subsidies to help purchase health insurance or CHIP for examp,e.

It's not "small amounts" - half their income is from welfare according to your article.

No. According to that article - those for whom half or more of their income is from public assistance have ALWAYS been eligible for deportation - that's the current law. The new proposal would extend it to those receiving ANY public assistence what so ever, such as subsidies to purchase health insurance, or utilizing the school lunch program, or CHIP.

 

[Indeependent]

No Jew was allowed in the US post WWII without an employer sponsoring them.

 

[Coyote]

Oh wait. So if a wealthy model lies on her application she gets a free pass, but if if a tomato picker does he gets deported?

Ok. Thanks for clearing that up.

Do you have a link to your claim, because I can't find anything on Google about her lying about anything.

And even if she did, does anybody really think a billionaire's wife wasn't going to be approved for citizenship for some reason? If that's unfair I'm sorry; the world is unfair. People like them are good for our taxes. Poor immigrants are not.

The better question is why would she lie?

Why would anyone?

Can you post that proof?

I agree that I don't really see why a billionaire's wife would need to lie to get citizenship. She was never going to be denied, ever.

She wasn't his wife at the time she applied to enter this country.

 

[Coyote]

No Jew was allowed in the US post WWII without an employer sponsoring them.

And you think that was a good thing?

 

[Confounding]

..
The new proposal would extend it to those receiving ANY public assistence what so ever, such as subsidies to purchase health insurance, or utilizing the school lunch program, or CHIP.

It'll be a good thing for our economy in my opinion.

American prosperity > Comfort of foreigners

 

[Coyote]

..
The new proposal would extend it to those receiving ANY public assistence what so ever, such as subsidies to purchase health insurance, or utilizing the school lunch program, or CHIP.

It'll be a good thing for our economy in my opinion.

American prosperity > Comfort of foreigners

Well, I disagree Confounding.

 

[Confounding]

Do you have a link to your claim, because I can't find anything on Google about her lying about anything.

And even if she did, does anybody really think a billionaire's wife wasn't going to be approved for citizenship for some reason? If that's unfair I'm sorry; the world is unfair. People like them are good for our taxes. Poor immigrants are not.

The better question is why would she lie?

Why would anyone?

Can you post that proof?

I agree that I don't really see why a billionaire's wife would need to lie to get citizenship. She was never going to be denied, ever.

She wasn't his wife at the time she applied to enter this country.

Well, I don't know much about their relationship. She was still a wealthy model that was never going to suck up welfare funds. It's different to me. Where is the proof though? I want to see the proof before I entertain this further.

 

[Indeependent]

No Jew was allowed in the US post WWII without an employer sponsoring them.

And you think that was a good thing?

Yes!
Notice how Jews were never renown for hanging out at the Department of Social Services.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Sorry, children, but immigration on this planet has been going on long before you and yours got here and will continue long after you are gone.
This country is, on record, is one of the newest on the planet, only a little over 400 years old.
Everyone here is descended from someone who came from somewhere else.
If you're not a direct, clean and pure descendant of the Wampanoags, who saved the first colonists from starvation, then STFU.

 

[Confounding]

..
The new proposal would extend it to those receiving ANY public assistence what so ever, such as subsidies to purchase health insurance, or utilizing the school lunch program, or CHIP.

It'll be a good thing for our economy in my opinion.

American prosperity > Comfort of foreigners

Well, I disagree Confounding.

You disagree that it will benefit our economy or that American prosperity should take priority? Or both?

 

[EverCurious]

Do you have a link to your claim, because I can't find anything on Google about her lying about anything.

And even if she did, does anybody really think a billionaire's wife wasn't going to be approved for citizenship for some reason? If that's unfair I'm sorry; the world is unfair. People like them are good for our taxes. Poor immigrants are not.

The better question is why would she lie?

Why would anyone?

Can you post that proof?

I agree that I don't really see why a billionaire's wife would need to lie to get citizenship. She was never going to be denied, ever.

She wasn't his wife at the time she applied to enter this country.

Right, she was a model that Hollywood wanted to bring to America for work. She came and worked, made millions, paid taxes to the US on it. AKA it was a net gain for the US to let her immigrate here.

VS

These welfare folks who are living off our taxpayers - either fully or by half. They also drive up our medical costs through EMTALA and overcrowd our public schools, paying in almost nothing they use our roads, our police, our firemen, and on top of all that they get /more/ money from taxpayers too.

The point of our immigration system is to give folks the opportunity for a better life, if the people ain't willing to take the opportunity then they can go back home and "fail to achieve."

 

[EverCurious]

..

I accept your moral argument. Now I have a question for you. Would it or would it not be better for our economy to get rid of those people?

No.

As it was pointed out, it has always been the case that those who completely rely on welfare are subject to possible deportation. No argument there. These are people who work but might use small amounts of assistance such as subsidies to help purchase health insurance or CHIP for examp,e.

It's not "small amounts" - half their income is from welfare according to your article.

No. According to that article - those for whom half or more of their income is from public assistance have ALWAYS been eligible for deportation - that's the current law. The new proposal would extend it to those receiving ANY public assistence what so ever, such as subsidies to purchase health insurance, or utilizing the school lunch program, or CHIP.

Good.

 

[Confounding]

If you're not a direct, clean and pure descendant of the Wampanoags, who saved the first colonists from starvation, then STFU.

Lol, sorry bro, this is the real world and my not being a native American is not going to stop me from advocating for keeping out people that don't benefit this country. I really don't care if you think I'm a hypocrite.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And even if she did, does anybody really think a billionaire's wife wasn't going to be approved for citizenship for some reason? If that's unfair I'm sorry; the world is unfair. People like them are good for our taxes. Poor immigrants are not.

The better question is why would she lie?

Why would anyone?

Can you post that proof?

I agree that I don't really see why a billionaire's wife would need to lie to get citizenship. She was never going to be denied, ever.

She wasn't his wife at the time she applied to enter this country.

Well, I don't know much about their relationship. She was still a wealthy model that was never going to suck up welfare funds. It's different to me. Where is the proof though? I want to see the proof before I entertain this further.

She made it up. I just looked at Wiki, and this is all they said about her coming to this country:

In 2001, she became a permanent resident of the United States. She married Donald Trump in 2005 and obtained U.S. citizenship in 2006.[6] She is the second Catholic,[7] after Jacqueline Kennedy,[8] and the first naturalized U.S. citizen to become First Lady of the United States.[9]

Melania Trump - Wikipedia