Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Health, Fitness, Food, Insurance, Longevity, Diets,...
User avatar
Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by Mister Imperceptible »

I don’t see the issue there, the states that want and/or need them get them, the states that don’t, don't. More than 30 states said they would accept them.

Once they are in the US, they have refuge from wherever they’re coming from. If a local constituency is unwelcoming I do not see the need for unnecessary friction.

George the original one
Posts: 5404
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by George the original one »

Mister Imperceptible wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:23 pm
I don’t see the issue there, the states that want and/or need them get them, the states that don’t, don't.
So are you really arguing that the government gets to tell you where to live? And that some legal residents of the USA have more rights than others?

User avatar
Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by Mister Imperceptible »

If the people of North Dakota who voted Republican and will vote Republican for the foreseeable future do not want refugees, would you as a refugee want to be there anyway? Neither the natives nor refugees will end up happy, it’s lose-lose. More than 30 states means you are not exactly lacking options. I want to live in California but I don’t want to pay a high cost of living with high taxes, no gun rights, and deal with the local politics. We can’t have everything we want all the time.

Salathor
Posts: 394
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:49 am
Location: California, USA

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by Salathor »

George the original one wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:33 pm
So are you really arguing that the government gets to tell you where to live? And that some legal residents of the USA have more rights than others?
Whether you think this PARTICULAR policy is just or not is one thing, but the very idea that anyone who is allowed any legal residency within a nation must by definition have all the same rights as a citizen is not logically sound.

The idea that some categories of "legal residents" should have different rights than others is neither extreme nor unprecedented. Within the Roman empire, "citizens" often had far more rights than other subjects of Roman rule. I could easily see support for a guest worker program within a nation (SEE JAPAN RIGHT NOW) in which a person is allowed to come, labor, earn money, live, but can't necessarily retire, utilize welfare services, or live there forever.

In fact, the US has some legal residents who are required to leave when their visas are up, whereas other legal residents are allowed to stay their entire lives. It has other legal residents who are not allowed to live close to schools. Are these not different rights, legitimately granted to different types of legal residents?

George the original one
Posts: 5404
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by George the original one »

Mister Imperceptible wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:44 pm
I want to live in California but I don’t want to pay a high cost of living with high taxes, no gun rights, and deal with the local politics. We can’t have everything we want all the time.
That argument is flawed and you know it! The difference, in your case, is it is your choice and not the government's.

George the original one
Posts: 5404
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by George the original one »

Salathor wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 3:13 pm
In fact, the US has some legal residents who are required to leave when their visas are up, whereas other legal residents are allowed to stay their entire lives. It has other legal residents who are not allowed to live close to schools. Are these not different rights, legitimately granted to different types of legal residents?
Those required to leave the USA know which visa they came in on and chose that particular one as their best option. To my knowledge, no other visa limits where you can live. Being convicted of criminal activity (sex offender) is naturally going to curtail your rights, so, yes, that is different because one has the choice to commit a criminal act or not.

User avatar
Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1669
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:18 pm

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by Mister Imperceptible »

I just try to picture a refugee from war-torn Africa and him or her wanting to live amidst a bunch of gun-toting white people in North Dakota, but the Mean Orange Guy is forcing him or her to go to California or Massachusetts where they can meet up with people who have therapy dogs.

Don’t see the issue, although when I hear about the huge African diaspora demanding access to social welfare benefits in Idaho I will likely change my mind! :D

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

One of the largest settlements of recent refugees from the Congo is in a very old school solidly Republican county in Michigan. Most refugee settlement non-profits are associated with church groups.

IlliniDave
Posts: 3845
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by IlliniDave »

George the original one wrote:
Sun Dec 22, 2019 5:47 pm
Trump's immoral war against immigrants, even legal immigrants, continues with an executive order allowing states to refuse refugees:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-governor ... ccounter=1

<my apologies for the cross-post, this was the thread I was aiming for but didn't spot first>
I also don't necessarily see an issue of morality. My understanding is that in the past immigrants of refugee status were typically "placed" somewhere by the federal gov't with the location having little say in the matter. I think refugees typically require initial government assistance (probably not true for all), and in general eventually need to find work. So there's a certain logic to steering refugees to places that feel they can support them getting on their feet. As stated in the article, after initial resettlement, a refugee can move wherever they want, just have to do so at their own expense.

What I'm not sure I like about the law is that in theory a governor can overrule a local community that has a need or desire to receive refugees. What I don't know is whether refugee resettlement obliges a state financially (or burdens services). The local chicken processing plant might love an influx of low-wage labor but if the state gov't gets hit with an uptick in service costs that doesn't come with a commensurate uptick in tax revenue, I can see why they might lobby for an amount of control. Seems like a problem that should be solvable without statewide bans, though, perhaps by shifting some of the burden to the beneficiary communities/businesses.

User avatar
Seppia
Posts: 2016
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:34 am
Location: South Florida

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by Seppia »

I’ve seen on twitter (so take this with a handful of salt) reports from h1b visa holders stating they’ve been denied boarding a plane to the USA because of a new executive order.
I searched the interwebs but couldn’t find anything 100% conclusive.
Anybody have news?

That’s the best I could find

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-admi ... 1591915950

https://www.visalawyerblog.com/looming- ... eing-said/

https://theprint.in/world/trumps-immigr ... hs/440818/

ertyu
Posts: 2893
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:31 am

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by ertyu »

US joins one of many countries. Might be happy days are over for us gastarbeiters. Corona isn't ending any time soon, and I would not be surprised if local interest groups use it for their ends, to restrict movement of labor while capital continues to stay mobile (keeping qualified workers outside of the developed world means you can pay them less) while at the same time looking good to their local constituents for keeping "the immigrants" out.

nomadscientist
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 12:54 am

Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services

Post by nomadscientist »

Salathor wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 3:13 pm
The idea that some categories of "legal residents" should have different rights than others is neither extreme nor unprecedented. Within the Roman empire, "citizens" often had far more rights than other subjects of Roman rule. I could easily see support for a guest worker program within a nation (SEE JAPAN RIGHT NOW) in which a person is allowed to come, labor, earn money, live, but can't necessarily retire, utilize welfare services, or live there forever.
It's always perplexed me how this possibility is never brought up, especially in [my home country] where there isn't an American-style tradition of immigration and the main reason given for it is economic. Plenty of people would agree to 5-10 year temporary working visas with no path to citizenship. You could even impose special head taxes on them and movement restrictions and they would still come. They come to Dubai. If the real reason were economic, you do not have to accept any change in the long run demographics of the country. Perhaps to get the highest skilled workers with the most options, but certainly not for unskilled labour.

Post Reply