Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services
- 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
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.
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.
-
- 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
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?Mister Imperceptible wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:23 pmI don’t see the issue there, the states that want and/or need them get them, the states that don’t, don't.
- 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
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.
Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services
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.George the original one wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:33 pmSo 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?
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?
-
- 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
That argument is flawed and you know it! The difference, in your case, is it is your choice and not the government's.Mister Imperceptible wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:44 pmI 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.
-
- 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
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.Salathor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 3:13 pmIn 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?
- 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
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!
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!
Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services
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.
-
- Posts: 3845
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm
Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services
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.George the original one wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 5:47 pmTrump'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>
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.
Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services
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/
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/
Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services
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.
-
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 12:54 am
Re: Warning: WH seeks to limit/deport immigrants using ACA and other gov. services
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.Salathor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 3:13 pmThe 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.