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

Health, Fitness, Insurance, ...
Seppia
Posts: 1199
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:34 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Seppia »

He is trying to fire up his base in view of 2020.

This is another move that is clearly not discriminatory at all, similarly to the “send them back” that was also clearly not discriminatory nor in any way shape or form influenced by the 4 ladies’ skin color.


7Wannabe5
Posts: 5548
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 most recommended new novels of this year is "A River of Stars" by Vanessa Hua. The protagonist is a 36 year old Chinese woman who leaves her peasant village at age 15 to work in factory, boot-straps her way up to administrative position, and then ends up knocked up by her Hong Kong dwelling, much older, married employer. When ultra-sound reveals that baby will be a boy, the affluent father spends approximately $30,000 to arrange for birth in the U.S. and the mother finds herself lodged in a suburban California maternity home packed full of other Chinese women and infants by a wily entrepreneur. The continuing adventures of the gutsy, inventive heroine speak directly to the means by which an individual, regardless of place of birth, may become what-we-mean-when-we-speak-of-being-an-American.
For the Chinese- for most everyone, she supposed-nationality and identity used to be synonymous. You left your ancestral province only under duress, fleeing famine, bandits, and war. You were Chinese, would always be, and you'd no sooner swear allegiance to another government than give up your firstborn. No longer. You might change your citizenship to practice your religion and your politics, to become a voter in a new land where you were making a life for yourself and your children, You might do it just to lower your taxes, and get ahead in the world.
Why does it make sense to build a wall to keep out people who want to get ahead in the world? Has our national level of self-esteem sunk that low?

The Old Man
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:55 pm

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

Post by The Old Man »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Thu Aug 22, 2019 7:17 am
Why does it make sense to build a wall to keep out people who want to get ahead in the world? Has our national level of self-esteem sunk that low?
If getting ahead benefits the USA, then they could apply for an immigrant VISA and bypass the wall. If getting ahead doesn't benefit the USA, then the wall serves its purpose by deterring those who would be a net cost on society.

The Old Man
Posts: 421
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:55 pm

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

Post by The Old Man »

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ealth-care
"Medicaid for the poor doesn’t apply and an immigrant will not be able to obtain a visa if using the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies when buying insurance."

Things are tightening. This looks like it goes too far. Will likely be challenged in court.

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 11742
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

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

Post by jacob »

As I understand it, this only holds for entry visas. It would not retroactively affect existing green card holders that was part of the original Miller plan. It will mostly affect people waiting to get into the country, e.g. J1 researchers, H1b professionals, and family members, ... who now have to jump through one additional hoop to ensure coverage BEFORE getting the visa. I think when it comes to employment visas, ACA is already not involved, so this is just an extra hassle for the HR department. It might be weirder for those needing to buy insurance privately giving how the market has changed to be ACA compliant.

My experience elsewhere is that other countries already demand the same thing but AFTER you're already in the country. The US is different in the sense that it's acceptable to go w/o insurance whereas elsewhere insurance is mandatory and enforceable.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 4484
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

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

Post by Ego »

Tijuana is essentially a bedroom community of San Diego. Every day about 120,000 people cross the border Many do all of their shopping in San Diego. We're talking billions of dollars flowing north. For decades those with visas have had to register their trip if they plan to go further than 25 miles north of the border. This border zone has been an economic boon to the region. There is an inspection station on I-5 at Camp Pendleton where they do spot checks. It has worked well. This health insurance proposal is going to kill that if it is not exempted for travel within the border zone.

George the original one
Posts: 4909
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 »

Ego wrote:
Mon Oct 07, 2019 1:09 pm
This health insurance proposal is going to kill that if it is not exempted for travel within the border zone.
Trump is already at war with California, so nothing new in this regard.

George the original one
Posts: 4909
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 »

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>

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1147
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: 4909
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?

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1147
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: 84
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 11:49 am

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: 4909
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: 4909
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.

Mister Imperceptible
Posts: 1147
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: 5548
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: 2710
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.

Post Reply