Non-IT News Thread
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda I don't disagree with this point of view.
"A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security said, "The administration is committed to enforcing existing immigration law, which is clearly intended to protect the American taxpayer by ensuring that foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in the U.S are self-sufficient."
Going to any country, and simply being a burden without adding something to the country as a whole isn't beneficial to any place or person(s).
While I can see the point, I think there would need to be some rules on these cases.
Part of the problem is that they label major economic contributors as burdens. Classifying what is and isn't a burden isn't a simple thing. An out of work single mom raising kids who become important professionals is a burden in some ways, but a HUGE investment in the country's future in another.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda I don't disagree with this point of view.
"A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security said, "The administration is committed to enforcing existing immigration law, which is clearly intended to protect the American taxpayer by ensuring that foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in the U.S are self-sufficient."
Going to any country, and simply being a burden without adding something to the country as a whole isn't beneficial to any place or person(s).
While I can see the point, I think there would need to be some rules on these cases.
Part of the problem is that they label major economic contributors as burdens. Classifying what is and isn't a burden isn't a simple thing. An out of work single mom raising kids who become important professionals is a burden in some ways, but a HUGE investment in the country's future in another.
Exactly my point, which is where things like this plan to make it impossible for legal immigrants to become citizens is difficult to quantify.
How can I (or anyone) know who is going to do great things and make a lot of money and hire a bunch of (lazy worthless americans) or who is going to have 6 kids and be on assistance until death?
-
@dustinb3403 No, that is not his reason. His reason is because most immigrants aren't white Christians.
This is just a workaround so it doesn't get thrown out immediately. Also, there more American born citizens on welfare than legal immigrants, your argument is nonsense. Also ACA isn't welfare. -
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 No, that is not his reason. His reason is because most immigrants aren't white Christians.
This is just a workaround so it doesn't get thrown out immediately. Also, there more American born citizens on welfare than legal immigrants, your argument is nonsense. Also ACA isn't welfare.This isn't my argument, don't take me as supporting Trump. And I totally agree there are a shit ton of Americans who are on welfare for their entire lives.
That is why this argument is weird to me.
I'd much rather put limits on Welfare for everyone so people have to have a job. I don't care sweep the streets of your city and we'll feed you and provide shelter.
And I know the ACA isn't welfare, but it is government funded (through taxpayer dollars). Also I'm all for cheaper healthcare (new daughter. . . .)
-
@dustinb3403 This rule would disqualify immigrants from becoming citizens if they use ACA. Justify this.
I might as well say you should lose citizenship if you use ACA, or that your daughter cant be a citizen because you or her used this service. -
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 This rule would disqualify immigrants from becoming citizens if they use ACA. Justify this.
The only way I could imagine justifying it is if the immigrants haven't and aren't paying taxes.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 This rule would disqualify immigrants from becoming citizens if they use ACA. Justify this.
The only way I could imagine justifying it is if the immigrants haven't and aren't paying taxes.
Many don't, but because they are paid illegally under minimum wage and aren't allowed to pay taxes. The tax discussion is booby trapped.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
I might as well say you should lose citizenship if you use ACA, or that your daughter cant be a citizen because you or her used this service.
You're taking this personally, first my daughter was born here, in the US, and has a US SSN. Her mother and parents migrated to the US and never (according to her) took advantage of any public services like food stamps.
This however doesn't mean that they should be given citizenship.
My point is the goal should be to have productive people come to the US, people who can be useful to the community as a whole.
-
@dustinb3403 Not personal at all. Its a rhetorical statement to show how dumb this proposal is. Just asking why you or you family shouldn't lose citizenship if you use ACA. Immigrants cant be citizens if they use it, even if they pay taxes for it under this rule. Why should you or anybody else be different? Hell, why not take US citizenship away from everybody who has ever used welfare or ACA?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 This rule would disqualify immigrants from becoming citizens if they use ACA. Justify this.
The only way I could imagine justifying it is if the immigrants haven't and aren't paying taxes.
Many don't, but because they are paid illegally under minimum wage and aren't allowed to pay taxes. The tax discussion is booby trapped.
The issue is that they come to the US illegally, hide from the process that exist to make them legal citizens and then can't become citizens because of the previous law breaking activities.
There are processes to being admitted to the US legally, let's improve and reduce cost for those processes rather than get stuck in the mud on things like this.
-
@momurda I'm willing to guess that Trump is thinking lifetime users of welfare of people who come to the US illegally are the ones he doesn't want here.
Like presidential terms, I'm for Welfare terms.
-
@dustinb3403 This is for legal immigrants, not undocumented illegal immigrants. Do you know what the difference is? It sure sounds like you don't.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 This is for legal immigrants, not undocumented illegal immigrants. Do you know what the difference is?
Legal , yea sorry I'm busy and reading.
For legal immigrants this would be stupid. They need support to become productive members of society.
-
Asian Games start on Saturday: https://en.asiangames2018.id/.
-
-
-
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
I think if the funding is indeed secured as his tweet stated, that he'll get a slap on the wrist ultimately. However, if for whatever reason any talks don't come to fruition and they remain public, I think he'll catch a lot of flack and be in bigger trouble from the SEC as well as investors who will look to file class action suits.
-
@zachary715 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
I think if the funding is indeed secured as his tweet stated, that he'll get a slap on the wrist ultimately. However, if for whatever reason any talks don't come to fruition and they remain public, I think he'll catch a lot of flack and be in bigger trouble from the SEC as well as investors who will look to file class action suits.
True. And this is yet more proof that you shouldn't just barf out every thought that enters your head onto twitter.
-
@zachary715 the issue stems from the fact that he stated later he was in talks with some people about taking the business private and that "he would have the funding" and then later looking to find other private investors to purchase the business.
The "funding secured" bit and then back tracking is what has him in trouble.
