|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 29 2020 03:38 Sent. wrote:
You don't have to homeschool them personally, you can hire one of those hundreds of thousands teachers who lost their jobs after the country switched to homeschooling. /s
sorry to shit post but this was absolutely hilarious.
|
Canada5565 Posts
On January 29 2020 03:12 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. + Show Spoiler +I think you missed a part of the question. how would you define someone likely to require benefits (i.e. what sort of proof)? it seems to me that your bar is rather high, and rather than just not being a public charge you would prefer that the immigrant would bring some sort of surplus to the country. let me know if i'm off base with that assertion. I wonder what your own forefathers might have to say about your take on immigration. What immediate multifaceted benefit to the country does anyone play 99.9% of residents and citizens merely pay taxes and have babies. Do you believe the permission to enter the country a privilege? or is it part of the fundamental fabric of the country? On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Which is more disgraceful: dying in a country for lack of opportunity, or violence, or immigrating to a country with lint in your pocket out of desparation. I think the disgrace is written on their faces when they cross a desert, because we have shut the gates of entry. (im not for open borders, just trying to paint a picture ). Is it possible that you cant imagine "immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength" because you have never been in such a position in your professional/financial/ life? (I dont want an answer on this, its your personal business, but perhaps your point of view is distorted by your own success, and maybe that is something you should examine). Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Agreed denying a green card and stripping citizenship are quite different, yet the net impact on the individual is quite equal would you agree? and if these two people are putting forth the same effort, working, yet still being unable to make ends meet, wouldn't it go directly against the first line of the constitution of this country, "we hold these truths self evident that all men are created equal" if we were to unequally treat these people? i know its alot of questions, but i want to understand your point of view as best I can. From the tone of your post I doubt you are asking in good faith, but I will answer anyways. The burden of proof is on them. Of course the bar is high, as it would be in any self-respecting society. My forefathers would think I'm naive and stand by the comparatively strict policies supported and in place during their time. It is undoubtedly a privilege. In my opinion, it would be a disgrace to have ones country fall into ruin on their watch, and then ask for admittance to another with nothing to offer -- and, if by a miracle of altruism, one was allowed into the country, they should act with utmost respect and gratitude. Thankfully such altruism is common in successful nations, and we sometimes give people in those circumstances the special refugee status. Disagree about net impact and your application of the constitution.On January 29 2020 03:28 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"? I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. There is a massive loss in productivity due to homeschooling, as it is inherently ineffective compared to normal schools. You picked my interest, how would this homeschooling work out? Year 1-12 and start apprenticeship stuff at year 10 or so? How will a company know whether the kid's got a decent education? Standardized tests conducted in a neutral environment? Not sure how exactly it would work. I think that would take quite a bit of time and effort to figure out. What you wrote looks like a fine start. Many small details, none insurmountable. Disagree it is inherently ineffective in comparison.On January 29 2020 03:36 BlueBird. wrote:
How are people supposed to homeschool their children while working two jobs so they aren’t on welfare. Public schooling with all of its flaws is one of the best things we have. Those fortunate enough to have the time to dedicate to their children, and there is still a small public school (welfare) system for those in need. If culture changed to have a contemporary take on the old tradition, and it was known that one partner would gladly take the duty, the market would adapt. It would also help a lot if purchasing power went up for the first time in 40 years and we found a way to curtail corporate interests.On January 29 2020 03:52 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"? I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. Okay, please explain this a bit more. It does not sound like a reasonable position to have. I am curious as to how you view a society working on only homeschooling to work. Well, I think it would work out with homeschooling and competitive apprenticeships that lead to jobs. I don't have an entire policy ready to go, if that's what you're asking.
I can tell some of you are worked up over my opinions. I'm happy to discuss with mannered, good faith posters, but I won't be able to check back until late tonight or tomorrow.
|
Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question:
On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"? I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. So school aged children (orphans especially) just shouldn't be allowed to immigrate in your view then?
was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration?
@Ryzel This is how I envision incorporating your critique on developing others arguments to my own interpretation of confronting contradictions within them. This better?
|
I mean, there's quite a bit to unpack there, all wrapped up in a nice condescending bow, but to begin with, the logic that all immigrants must necessarily be well off and competitive to current citizens is just backwards. Just from an incentives standpoint, how is that supposed to work? You're expecting to only have people showing up who've already built a successful life for themselves, but for some reason decide they don't want to continue succeeding where they are anymore? What about children? Orphans? Anyone coming to America for its purported promise of a better life? Your premise for what constitutes "good" immigration instantly excludes all of those people. Are we now adopting the Trump team's perverted interpretation of the Statue of Liberty's mission? Since when?
Try a shoe on the other foot for a change. What if you had to migrate to another country because you had no chance of making it where you were, or if your life were actively in danger. How would it feel to know you couldn't migrate, because they arbitrarily decided you weren't good enough, and then find out they also blame you for your country "being in ruins" (whatever that's supposed to mean)? I suppose, before I waste any more time, I should ask, did any of the above sound unreasonable to you?
|
Northern Ireland23831 Posts
On January 29 2020 04:20 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 03:12 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. + Show Spoiler +I think you missed a part of the question. how would you define someone likely to require benefits (i.e. what sort of proof)? it seems to me that your bar is rather high, and rather than just not being a public charge you would prefer that the immigrant would bring some sort of surplus to the country. let me know if i'm off base with that assertion. I wonder what your own forefathers might have to say about your take on immigration. What immediate multifaceted benefit to the country does anyone play 99.9% of residents and citizens merely pay taxes and have babies. Do you believe the permission to enter the country a privilege? or is it part of the fundamental fabric of the country? On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Which is more disgraceful: dying in a country for lack of opportunity, or violence, or immigrating to a country with lint in your pocket out of desparation. I think the disgrace is written on their faces when they cross a desert, because we have shut the gates of entry. (im not for open borders, just trying to paint a picture ). Is it possible that you cant imagine "immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength" because you have never been in such a position in your professional/financial/ life? (I dont want an answer on this, its your personal business, but perhaps your point of view is distorted by your own success, and maybe that is something you should examine). Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Agreed denying a green card and stripping citizenship are quite different, yet the net impact on the individual is quite equal would you agree? and if these two people are putting forth the same effort, working, yet still being unable to make ends meet, wouldn't it go directly against the first line of the constitution of this country, "we hold these truths self evident that all men are created equal" if we were to unequally treat these people? i know its alot of questions, but i want to understand your point of view as best I can. From the tone of your post I doubt you are asking in good faith, but I will answer anyways. The burden of proof is on them. Of course the bar is high, as it would be in any self-respecting society. My forefathers would think I'm naive and stand by the comparatively strict policies supported and in place during their time. It is undoubtedly a privilege. In my opinion, it would be a disgrace to have ones country fall into ruin on their watch, and then ask for admittance to another with nothing to offer -- and, if by a miracle of altruism, one was allowed into the country, they should act with utmost respect and gratitude. Thankfully such altruism is common in successful nations, and we sometimes give people in those circumstances the special refugee status. Disagree about net impact and your application of the constitution. Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 03:28 Artisreal wrote:On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"? I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. There is a massive loss in productivity due to homeschooling, as it is inherently ineffective compared to normal schools. You picked my interest, how would this homeschooling work out? Year 1-12 and start apprenticeship stuff at year 10 or so? How will a company know whether the kid's got a decent education? Standardized tests conducted in a neutral environment? Not sure how exactly it would work. I think that would take quite a bit of time and effort to figure out. What you wrote looks like a fine start. Many small details, none insurmountable. Disagree it is inherently ineffective in comparison. Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 03:36 BlueBird. wrote:
How are people supposed to homeschool their children while working two jobs so they aren’t on welfare. Public schooling with all of its flaws is one of the best things we have. Those fortunate enough to have the time to dedicate to their children, and there is still a small public school (welfare) system for those in need. If culture changed to have a contemporary take on the old tradition, and it was known that one partner would gladly take the duty, the market would adapt. It would also help a lot if purchasing power went up for the first time in 40 years and we found a way to curtail corporate interests. Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 03:52 Simberto wrote:On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"? I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. Okay, please explain this a bit more. It does not sound like a reasonable position to have. I am curious as to how you view a society working on only homeschooling to work. Well, I think it would work out with homeschooling and competitive apprenticeships that lead to jobs. I don't have an entire policy ready to go, if that's what you're asking. I can tell some of you are worked up over my opinions. I'm happy to discuss with mannered, good faith posters, but I won't be able to check back until late tonight or tomorrow.
It’s an awful, awful idea without a slew of other changes, although I appreciate me some radical proposals and you have acknowledged a lot of other chairs would need moved.
You haven’t really delved into why you think this change would be desirable and an improvement from the current system?
Even if it’s purely hypothetical what do you feel society would gain from switching to such a system in the first place?
|
On January 28 2020 08:56 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2020 22:49 iamthedave wrote:On January 27 2020 05:07 Grumbels wrote:On January 27 2020 02:08 Xxio wrote:On January 27 2020 01:48 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 27 2020 01:34 Xxio wrote:On January 26 2020 16:13 ChristianS wrote:On January 26 2020 15:00 Xxio wrote:On January 26 2020 13:59 ChristianS wrote:On January 26 2020 13:00 Xxio wrote:
[quote]He makes a good point about SK. I would trade Trudeau for Trump in an instant. Care to elaborate what point about SK you like? I didn't hear anything exceptional. Negotiate trade in favor of U.S.A. Hints that U.S.A. military shouldn't be there. Sadly I don't think he cares about much other than short term GDP and campaign slogans. He's a bad president but the contenders are disastrous imo. Good ones blocked by MSM and the parties. + Show Spoiler +But I don’t care much about Trudeau. I do, however, care some about South Korea, and listening to that recording all I heard was some grumbling about how South Korea is ruining our steel industry (possibly with *gasp* Chinese steel) and how that’s really very ungrateful of them considering how we’re stopping North Korea from nuking them and all.
Personally I don’t understand what’s to like about that, and I’d be interested to hear what part appeals to you. The protectionism, I guess? The indignation that a state benefiting from our world policing would dare to compete with us commercially? I don’t know specifically what the “shipping Chinese steel on trains” business is about, maybe you do?
I don’t get protectionism’s appeal much honestly. The lazy argument I can make is “look at Trump’s trade war, it’s going bad for us and the stock market freaks out about it sometimes.” And I think it probably has been bad for us, but more broadly the whole premise of protectionism is “we’re going to try to set the rules of international trade to give our businesses a systemic advantage over foreign competition.” Why is that fair? If a foreign business is more efficient than ours but we manage to set the rules such that our business has an unfair advantage and runs them out of business, why is that a good outcome? If we so quickly demonstrate to other countries that we have no interest in fair dealings and will pick their pocket at first opportunity, how can we hope to maintain positive relationships with them, or expect them not to backstab us just as quickly?
Our troop presence in SK adds a twist to this. A lot of people are very critical of our wide military footprint and insistence on policing the world - I don’t like it much myself - but of all our international meddling, putting troops in South Korea to discourage North Korean aggression seems like one of the better causes we’ve taken up. North Korea invading South Korea would be a massive humanitarian catastrophe, and our troop presence meaningfully reduces the likelihood of that happening.
But it’s a bit rich for us to make all this fuss about keeping South Korea “free” and then turn around and say they don’t have the right to compete with us economically. Are they free, or aren’t they? I don’t have a bit of interest in hitting up our allies for protection money, as Trump likes to talk about, but demanding they direct their economy to grow ours rather than their own is even worse to me. Is this not extortion?
In game theory terminology, Trump’s foreign policy generally usually boils down to an “Always Forsake” policy. Shout and threaten our enemies unless they serve our interests; extort our allies out of their lunch money and threaten to sanction them or even refuse to protect them unless they pay up. It’s unabashedly immoral; but even in self-interest terms, it’s probably pretty bad policy. “Always Forsake” makes you an asshole, but also usually means nobody wants to cooperate with you so you’re ultimately worse off, too. I wish US would stop playing world police and force/allow other countries to grow up. I don't have a problem with Trump asking for more money to cover the cost, if SK wants the US to continue as their bodyguard -- besides wishing they weren't there at all. It's reasonable to ask if it's still worth it to be there. It's reasonable to ask sure, but you shouldn't need to. A stronger Korea and Japan keeps China's power in check. Do you think it is in US interest to maintain status as the global super power? The notion that everything comes down to money and extorting our allies because we can is misguided foreign policy. We didn't install ourselves into Korea and Japan to be their bodyguard. We installed ourselves there to exert power and influence in Asia. In my opinion help Korea and Japan become strong enough to stand on their own as good allies, along with other nearby nations scared of China enough to do the same. I'd rather not have US or anyone as a global super power but independent nations in alliance. Doubt US will give up influence and leave, and also doubt SK wants them to. I'm actually learning Japanese as a hobby, but it made me think that Japanese and Korean culture has always been very strongly tied to China. We had a look in my language class at some typical Japanese cultural traditions such as flower arrangements, tea ceremonies, various Buddhist rituals and schools, and it can all be directly traced from contact with China. Same for language, there are many words of Chinese origin in Japanese, and obviously they use Chinese symbols for writing. So on that level, which is a bit naive obviously, wouldn't it make much more sense for Japan and Korea to be allied with China? The USA wouldn't like it one bit if Mexico was an ally of China and had all sorts of naval bases there and so on. In Europe we wouldn't like it if, idk, Italy was a Russian client state. It would create incredible tension. I haven't been convinced that US presence in that region is not a destabilizing factor and that it is preferable to a more natural Chinese regional hegemony. Same with Iran honestly. Isn't it more natural for Iran to be the regional power when it comes to the Middle East's shiite population instead of the USA? Learning the language isn't knowing the history or the culture. Back in the formative years of both nations China was the cultural and political superpower. It's not unfair to compare it to the British Empire, but even more locally influential. Japan was a client state giving tribute to China for a long period. But like a lot of island-states, both grew out of it and eventually asserted their independence and individual cultures. China is - and has always been - strongly about one-culture. You can totally see echoes of that in Japan and Korea, but their visions of that one-culture are divergent. China would never be willing to see either of them as equal partners and they would never deign to be seen as less than that. It's fine to accept the US as a more powerful ally because the US is outside of the cultural history, but Japan's got a solid history of kicking China's face in and inflicting war crimes on them. Likewise, Japan attacked and brutalised Korea. The Koreans don't trust the Japanese or Chinese, and the Japanese don't trust the Chinese and see the Koreans as inferior. There's really zero chance of those three nations ever really allying with each other. A united Korea would be as stridently independent of larger Asia as South Korea tries to be now. So yes, you would end up with an arms race in Asia if you left them to their own devices. The Japanese/Chinese are going to expect an invasion from the other, and Korea will be expecting an aggressive knock from one or both at some point, because that's what's happened throughout their history. While all of this is true, Europe had shown to that if economic conditions change, it's actually quite easy to move past about 1000 years of wars and atrocities back and forth. Not that Eastern Asia is currently anywhere near the situation Western Europe was in in the 1950s, but starting categorically that Korea, Japan and China will be enemies forever is about as sensible as stating England, Spain and France will always be enemies, because they were warring for centuries.
England, France and Spain are more or less the same size, with more or less the same (scale of) power and people.
China, now that is has grown economically, is now an enormous black hole warping the whole region around it. Previously it had mainly people, and was 30 years late on Japan and 20 on SK, which balanced things more. Now it's skewed.
You can't compare both of these situations.
|
On January 29 2020 04:36 NewSunshine wrote:
I mean, there's quite a bit to unpack there, all wrapped up in a nice condescending bow, but to begin with, the logic that all immigrants must necessarily be well off and competitive to current citizens is just backwards. Just from an incentives standpoint, how is that supposed to work? You're expecting to only have people showing up who've already built a successful life for themselves, but for some reason decide they don't want to continue succeeding where they are anymore? What about children? Orphans? Anyone coming to America for its purported promise of a better life? Your premise for what constitutes "good" immigration instantly excludes all of those people. Are we now adopting the Trump team's perverted interpretation of the Statue of Liberty's mission? Since when?
Try a shoe on the other foot for a change. What if you had to migrate to another country because you had no chance of making it where you were, or if your life were actively in danger. How would it feel to know you couldn't migrate, because they arbitrarily decided you weren't good enough, and then find out they also blame you for your country "being in ruins" (whatever that's supposed to mean)? I suppose, before I waste any more time, I should ask, did any of the above sound unreasonable to you?
When you manage to convince yourself that ethics are a function of position, rather than capability, nonsense like that naturally follows. This is just the same thing we've seen 1000 times. The views being expressed by Xxio are not new, unique, or even views we haven't addressed at least 20 times over the course of this thread. Every now and then, someone with Xxio's views walks in and wonders why we need all these structural systems.
"But wait, if everyone was great, and capable of things themselves, and had the available money, why not just let people figure it out themselves rather than having an overarching structure that delivers that service?"
Because that's how it used to be. The world didn't pop into existence with the USA and everything else established. It used to all be home school. Big problems with that. The one that these anarchists actually care about: When other families do a shitty job, it also negatively influences "good" families. The rich suffer when the poor are left to their own devices. Not just society, but the middle and upper class all benefit from providing a structured, government created education system.
We are basically seeing a applied form of boomer philosophy, which roughly goes like this: Stuff is shitty in the past --> reform happens to make things less shitty --> boomer grows up in this great environment where everything is great --> things are great for so long, due to changes made, that people start to wonder if the current system is wasteful --> stuff gets worse.
We had conservatives all throughout history. Even they were convinced we needed a school system. Its not that the old world was some socialist paradise and conservatism is some newly birthed movement. Society saw how fucked shit was and made it better. Having the luxury of wondering if public schools are necessary are proof the changes were good.
It honestly feels like some people can't grasp the idea we used to live in caves and slowly made improvements to society such that I am typing this on a laptop.
|
On January 29 2020 05:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 04:36 NewSunshine wrote:
I mean, there's quite a bit to unpack there, all wrapped up in a nice condescending bow, but to begin with, the logic that all immigrants must necessarily be well off and competitive to current citizens is just backwards. Just from an incentives standpoint, how is that supposed to work? You're expecting to only have people showing up who've already built a successful life for themselves, but for some reason decide they don't want to continue succeeding where they are anymore? What about children? Orphans? Anyone coming to America for its purported promise of a better life? Your premise for what constitutes "good" immigration instantly excludes all of those people. Are we now adopting the Trump team's perverted interpretation of the Statue of Liberty's mission? Since when?
Try a shoe on the other foot for a change. What if you had to migrate to another country because you had no chance of making it where you were, or if your life were actively in danger. How would it feel to know you couldn't migrate, because they arbitrarily decided you weren't good enough, and then find out they also blame you for your country "being in ruins" (whatever that's supposed to mean)? I suppose, before I waste any more time, I should ask, did any of the above sound unreasonable to you? When you manage to convince yourself that ethics are a function of position, rather than capability, nonsense like that naturally follows. This is just the same thing we've seen 1000 times. The views being expressed by Xxio are not new, unique, or even views we haven't addressed at least 20 times over the course of this thread. Every now and then, someone with Xxio's views walks in and wonders why we need all these structural systems. "But wait, if everyone was great, and capable of things themselves, and had the available money, why not just let people figure it out themselves rather than having an overarching structure that delivers that service?" Because that's how it used to be. The world didn't pop into existence with the USA and everything else established. It used to all be home school. Big problems with that. The one that these anarchists actually care about: When other families do a shitty job, it also negatively influences "good" families. The rich suffer when the poor are left to their own devices. Not just society, but the middle and upper class all benefit from providing a structured, government created education system. We are basically seeing a applied form of boomer philosophy, which roughly goes like this: Stuff is shitty in the past --> reform happens to make things less shitty --> boomer grows up in this great environment where everything is great --> things are great for so long, due to changes made, that people start to wonder if the current system is wasteful --> stuff gets worse. We had conservatives all throughout history. Even they were convinced we needed a school system. Its not that the old world was some socialist paradise and conservatism is some newly birthed movement. Society saw how fucked shit was and made it better. Having the luxury of wondering if public schools are necessary are proof the changes were good. It honestly feels like some people can't grasp the idea we used to live in caves and slowly made improvements to society such that I am typing this on a laptop.
I think your overall point is strong but "improvements" is dependent on how one measures. It is kind of like the misunderstanding of evolution as a progressive process leading to an ultimate genetic combination rather than a description of the process of changing the distribution of various genetic combinations.
Societies have certainly changed/varied drastically throughout time but to decide that modern US society is better than PNW Indigenous societies is a matter of metrics (and can vary wildly depending on one's position in US society) imo.
|
On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question: Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"? I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. So school aged children (orphans especially) just shouldn't be allowed to immigrate in your view then? was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration? @Ryzel This is how I envision incorporating your critique on developing others arguments to my own interpretation of confronting contradictions within them. This better?
It’s broader than orphans/solo young adults. Presumably within this framework, any family which wanted their kids to use public school could be deported (or at the very least have their kids deported). Taken to its extreme, anybody using public transportation to get to work could be deported too.
One of the things that this administration has brought into really clear focus, especially on this issue, is that when it comes to what’s “legal,” anything the government does is presumptively legal until some other government authority intervenes to say it isn’t. Usually that means somebody has to sue and spend years in court. Anything you think the government “can’t” do to you, it actually just doesn’t do as a matter of policy, and could do to you if it wanted; then you could spend years in court trying to get a judge to say that shouldn’t have done that and maybe award you damages. If you’re not the sort of person who can do that, you’re just crossing your fingers the government doesn’t decide to just do it anyway.
As I understand it, for instance, the government is legally obligated to process asylum-seekers as they arrive at ports of entry. It’s not “legal” to send people away, put them on a waiting list, etc. but the administration has been doing exactly that from day one. In fact, at this point we’ve got large, unsafe, diseased refugee camps on our southern border filled with people waiting for their case to be processed. In some cases, a judge has already approved their asylum case and the government is just turning them away anyway, sometimes with fake court papers giving them another day in a few months to show up (on which day, of course, they’ll be told they don’t actually have a court date and be turned away again). All of this is “illegal,” and yet the government is doing it and no one is stopping them. In what sense is it “illegal” then?
This is exactly the sort of thing the ideal of “rule of law” is supposed to oppose; and yet the people who supposedly hold it most dear tend to be the ones most enthusiastic about the administration’s policies on immigration.
|
On January 29 2020 05:59 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question: On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"? I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. So school aged children (orphans especially) just shouldn't be allowed to immigrate in your view then? was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration? @Ryzel This is how I envision incorporating your critique on developing others arguments to my own interpretation of confronting contradictions within them. This better? It’s broader than orphans/solo young adults. Presumably within this framework, any family which wanted their kids to use public school could be deported (or at the very least have their kids deported). Taken to its extreme, anybody using public transportation to get to work could be deported too. One of the things that this administration has brought into really clear focus, especially on this issue, is that when it comes to what’s “legal,” anything the government does is presumptively legal until some other government authority intervenes to say it isn’t. Usually that means somebody has to sue and spend years in court. Anything you think the government “can’t” do to you, it actually just doesn’t do as a matter of policy, and could do to you if it wanted; then you could spend years in court trying to get a judge to say that shouldn’t have done that and maybe award you damages. If you’re not the sort of person who can do that, you’re just crossing your fingers the government doesn’t decide to just do it anyway. As I understand it, for instance, the government is legally obligated to process asylum-seekers as they arrive at ports of entry. It’s not “legal” to send people away, put them on a waiting list, etc. but the administration has been doing exactly that from day one. In fact, at this point we’ve got large, unsafe, diseased refugee camps on our southern border filled with people waiting for their case to be processed. In some cases, a judge has already approved their asylum case and the government is just turning them away anyway, sometimes with fake court papers giving them another day in a few months to show up (on which day, of course, they’ll be told they don’t actually have a court date and be turned away again). All of this is “illegal,” and yet the government is doing it and no one is stopping them. In what sense is it “illegal” then? This is exactly the sort of thing the ideal of “rule of law” is supposed to oppose; and yet the people who supposedly hold it most dear tend to be the ones most enthusiastic about the administration’s policies on immigration.
Totally agree and one of my long-standing points about Trump has been that he's awakening a segment of the US (and international community to a degree) to what has just been common knowledge among many marginalized groups for virtually the entirety of the US's existence.
That's what politicians from both parties actually hate about Trump more than his policy generally. He's circumvented their power by simply playing the same game unmasked.
His brashness undermines the stability of the con.
|
To be fair, courts have stepped in where particularly egregious ICE and CFBP actions are at issue, but only in limited circumstances, many of which turn on how the judges involved regard conservative jurisprudence relative to judicial power. Ideally, the courts would be the check on what is and is not illegal in this context, but 35+ years of decisions that limit court power are taking their toll.
On a related note, old school conservative Judge Easterbrook out of the Seventh Circuit recently tore the Board of Immigration Appeals and the DoJ a new one for flatly ignoring an appellate remand/reconsider order, so perhaps the winds are shifting.
|
On January 29 2020 06:16 farvacola wrote:
To be fair, courts have stepped in where particularly egregious ICE and CFBP actions are at issue, but only in limited circumstances, many of which turn on how the judges involved regard conservative jurisprudence relative to judicial power. Ideally, the courts would be the check on what is and is not illegal in this context, but 35+ years of decisions that limit court power are taking their toll.
Not mention the combined efforts of stalling Obama admin era judges and packing courts under the Trump administration. If I was strategically mapping this out we could expect the "rule of law" and these egregious violations of basic human rights to line up at some point in the near future, and those that refuse to accept that, dealt with.
|
The one factor that gives me hope in that realm is that the work of a federal district court judge is basically all consuming, and I expect that the many political operatives who made it to the bench will find it not to their liking as the child porn and habeas cases pile up.
|
On January 29 2020 04:20 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 03:12 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. + Show Spoiler +I think you missed a part of the question. how would you define someone likely to require benefits (i.e. what sort of proof)? it seems to me that your bar is rather high, and rather than just not being a public charge you would prefer that the immigrant would bring some sort of surplus to the country. let me know if i'm off base with that assertion. I wonder what your own forefathers might have to say about your take on immigration. What immediate multifaceted benefit to the country does anyone play 99.9% of residents and citizens merely pay taxes and have babies. Do you believe the permission to enter the country a privilege? or is it part of the fundamental fabric of the country? On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Which is more disgraceful: dying in a country for lack of opportunity, or violence, or immigrating to a country with lint in your pocket out of desparation. I think the disgrace is written on their faces when they cross a desert, because we have shut the gates of entry. (im not for open borders, just trying to paint a picture ). Is it possible that you cant imagine "immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength" because you have never been in such a position in your professional/financial/ life? (I dont want an answer on this, its your personal business, but perhaps your point of view is distorted by your own success, and maybe that is something you should examine). Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Agreed denying a green card and stripping citizenship are quite different, yet the net impact on the individual is quite equal would you agree? and if these two people are putting forth the same effort, working, yet still being unable to make ends meet, wouldn't it go directly against the first line of the constitution of this country, "we hold these truths self evident that all men are created equal" if we were to unequally treat these people? i know its alot of questions, but i want to understand your point of view as best I can. From the tone of your post I doubt you are asking in good faith, but I will answer anyways. The burden of proof is on them. Of course the bar is high, as it would be in any self-respecting society. My forefathers would think I'm naive and stand by the comparatively strict policies supported and in place during their time. It is undoubtedly a privilege. In my opinion, it would be a disgrace to have ones country fall into ruin on their watch, and then ask for admittance to another with nothing to offer -- and, if by a miracle of altruism, one was allowed into the country, they should act with utmost respect and gratitude. Thankfully such altruism is common in successful nations, and we sometimes give people in those circumstances the special refugee status. Disagree about net impact and your application of the constitution.
Completely in good faith, just asking you as we go to examine some things in your own perspective, as i believe you may be taking too myopic a view. Agreed that the burden of proof is on them, i was just asking what you would expect as sufficient proof to meet your requirements for entry. (not asking you to write the entire law, just give me some examples so that we can have a discussion based on your opinion and not my guess of what your opinion is.)
That you believe immigration is a privilege afforded by this country, and not part in parcel to the country's existence is a point where we will disagree, and I wont bother trying to convince you otherwise as that is too deep a conversation for this venue.
What do you think of people's whose countries have been ruined for the last 2 centuries, is it then their disgrace that they choose to cut their loses in search of something better? You mention disgrace as though these people are coming with smiles on their faces... its kind of a moot point, but to your larger point about altruism, this law, but more importantly your personal take on this law (the high bar) is essentially gutting that altruism.
What does acting with the utmost respect and gratitude mean to you? Would a recent immigrant trying to find work and being employed 40+ hours per week, but still impoverished and collecting housing assistance not be considered as acting with the utmost respect and gratitude? (i think you are conflating law abiding immigrants with the ever present bad hombres? not sure exactly how to unpack what you're trying to convey.)
|
On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"? I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind.
Which definition of welfare is that? the definition I found identifies welfare as "aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need" public school is a service that is bought and paid for by everyone within that particular school district. even if you are renting your rent is going towards the landlord's payment of his property taxes. Not sure if you are using some other philosophical definition of welfare...
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/welfare
|
|
|
Bolton for Biden is a no brainier trade for Democrats.
|
Northern Ireland23831 Posts
I was in work earlier and on Sky News in the cantina there was Trump talking about a Middle East Peace deal.
I’m only home now but that was like 3 hours ago, I’m surprised none of you guys have raised the topic yet.
I’m personally still unsure on what’s on the table and what’s going on, currently reading up.
|
United States24578 Posts
We don't need to discuss every ridiculous thing this administration does. Impeachment is pretty important and so the focus is on that.
|
Canada5565 Posts
On January 29 2020 03:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"? I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. Your immigration and schooling views render you a far-right reactionary, not a radical. The two terms have distinctive meanings relative to the policy area they are used to describe. I wouldn't have guessed that about the schooling. Always thought it was more libertarian/hippie/anarchist or something like that. Chomsky and Gatto, among others, convinced me to be highly skeptical of the education system and envision something better.On January 29 2020 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Not sure if you missed it or deemed it in bad faith but my question: Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 03:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"? I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. So school aged children (orphans especially) just shouldn't be allowed to immigrate in your view then? was sincere. I don't see how allowing orphans (or any children/young adults dependent on public education) into the country wouldn't necessarily contradict your view (as articulated thus far) of acceptable immigration? Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like you want to ask me questions until you find a perceived inconsistency and 'gotcha' moment -- similar to the bomb question you asked before.On January 29 2020 04:36 NewSunshine wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I mean, there's quite a bit to unpack there, all wrapped up in a nice condescending bow, but to begin with, the logic that all immigrants must necessarily be well off and competitive to current citizens is just backwards. Just from an incentives standpoint, how is that supposed to work? You're expecting to only have people showing up who've already built a successful life for themselves, but for some reason decide they don't want to continue succeeding where they are anymore? What about children? Orphans? Anyone coming to America for its purported promise of a better life? Your premise for what constitutes "good" immigration instantly excludes all of those people. Are we now adopting the Trump team's perverted interpretation of the Statue of Liberty's mission? Since when?
Try a shoe on the other foot for a change. What if you had to migrate to another country because you had no chance of making it where you were, or if your life were actively in danger. How would it feel to know you couldn't migrate, because they arbitrarily decided you weren't good enough, and then find out they also blame you for your country "being in ruins" (whatever that's supposed to mean)? I suppose, before I waste any more time, I should ask, did any of the above sound unreasonable to you? I already described the shoe on the other foot. I don't know what's so very controversial about my opinion here. I think everyone agrees there should be standards. Maybe the person is immigrating to accept a job offer of good quality, open a business, retire, join a family member as a dependent. I don't know why a child or orphan would need to immigrate alone in anything other than a refugee scenario, and there are limits even in a hypothetical refugee scenario. I believe the statement that America is and has been open to anyone who simply wants a better life is incorrect, and I would not create policy based on a poem or statue. A lot of businesses love the current weak immigration policies because they can count on taxpayers to support the workers and thereby let them get away with paying them pennies.On January 29 2020 04:47 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 04:20 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 03:12 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. + Show Spoiler +I think you missed a part of the question. how would you define someone likely to require benefits (i.e. what sort of proof)? it seems to me that your bar is rather high, and rather than just not being a public charge you would prefer that the immigrant would bring some sort of surplus to the country. let me know if i'm off base with that assertion. I wonder what your own forefathers might have to say about your take on immigration. What immediate multifaceted benefit to the country does anyone play 99.9% of residents and citizens merely pay taxes and have babies. Do you believe the permission to enter the country a privilege? or is it part of the fundamental fabric of the country? On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Which is more disgraceful: dying in a country for lack of opportunity, or violence, or immigrating to a country with lint in your pocket out of desparation. I think the disgrace is written on their faces when they cross a desert, because we have shut the gates of entry. (im not for open borders, just trying to paint a picture ). Is it possible that you cant imagine "immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength" because you have never been in such a position in your professional/financial/ life? (I dont want an answer on this, its your personal business, but perhaps your point of view is distorted by your own success, and maybe that is something you should examine). Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Agreed denying a green card and stripping citizenship are quite different, yet the net impact on the individual is quite equal would you agree? and if these two people are putting forth the same effort, working, yet still being unable to make ends meet, wouldn't it go directly against the first line of the constitution of this country, "we hold these truths self evident that all men are created equal" if we were to unequally treat these people? i know its alot of questions, but i want to understand your point of view as best I can. From the tone of your post I doubt you are asking in good faith, but I will answer anyways. The burden of proof is on them. Of course the bar is high, as it would be in any self-respecting society. My forefathers would think I'm naive and stand by the comparatively strict policies supported and in place during their time. It is undoubtedly a privilege. In my opinion, it would be a disgrace to have ones country fall into ruin on their watch, and then ask for admittance to another with nothing to offer -- and, if by a miracle of altruism, one was allowed into the country, they should act with utmost respect and gratitude. Thankfully such altruism is common in successful nations, and we sometimes give people in those circumstances the special refugee status. Disagree about net impact and your application of the constitution. On January 29 2020 03:28 Artisreal wrote:On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"? I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. There is a massive loss in productivity due to homeschooling, as it is inherently ineffective compared to normal schools. You picked my interest, how would this homeschooling work out? Year 1-12 and start apprenticeship stuff at year 10 or so? How will a company know whether the kid's got a decent education? Standardized tests conducted in a neutral environment? Not sure how exactly it would work. I think that would take quite a bit of time and effort to figure out. What you wrote looks like a fine start. Many small details, none insurmountable. Disagree it is inherently ineffective in comparison. On January 29 2020 03:36 BlueBird. wrote:
How are people supposed to homeschool their children while working two jobs so they aren’t on welfare. Public schooling with all of its flaws is one of the best things we have. Those fortunate enough to have the time to dedicate to their children, and there is still a small public school (welfare) system for those in need. If culture changed to have a contemporary take on the old tradition, and it was known that one partner would gladly take the duty, the market would adapt. It would also help a lot if purchasing power went up for the first time in 40 years and we found a way to curtail corporate interests. On January 29 2020 03:52 Simberto wrote:On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"? I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. Okay, please explain this a bit more. It does not sound like a reasonable position to have. I am curious as to how you view a society working on only homeschooling to work. Well, I think it would work out with homeschooling and competitive apprenticeships that lead to jobs. I don't have an entire policy ready to go, if that's what you're asking. I can tell some of you are worked up over my opinions. I'm happy to discuss with mannered, good faith posters, but I won't be able to check back until late tonight or tomorrow. It’s an awful, awful idea without a slew of other changes, although I appreciate me some radical proposals and you have acknowledged a lot of other chairs would need moved. You haven’t really delved into why you think this change would be desirable and an improvement from the current system? Even if it’s purely hypothetical what do you feel society would gain from switching to such a system in the first place? It's my personal opinion partly informed by the years of homeschooling, public school, private school, undergrad, and graduate school I've experienced. Homeschool was where I thrived the most by far, and I know a couple other people who were also homeschooled and loved it (not including my siblings, who benefitted a lot from it too). There are other alternatives that I think would also be good, but they would be so far removed from the current system that it would make sense to call them by a different name.
I haven't read about it in years, but my understanding of the public school system is that it was created to prepare and indoctrinate children for factory jobs and is based on the Prussian military model, with a primary goal of making obedient citizens that do as they are ordered (I know that's a quick overview with a lot of Chomsky). Maybe it worked well for a time, but for lots of reasons I think it has fulfilled the use it had and, while it helped us grow, should now, like scaffolding, largely be removed in place of something better, that we are now ready for. I advocate for homeschooling as a good (but not the only) option because I have experience with it, and I think it would help parent-child bonding that is lacking these days, create stronger family units, without necessarily sacrificing education quality (in fact I think it would be much higher quality). I don't have the time or willpower to write an essay about it at the moment, but there are, imo, very strong arguments for homeschooling out there that should be easy to find.
I also think government should be as small and invisible as possible, and I don't like depending on it any more than necessary, especially not with raising children. I've been greatly persuaded by Chomsky's vision of an anarcho-syndicalist society. Not sure if I've read this exact interview but he talks about it here. There is a comprehensive essay he wrote about it somewhere that I'll try to find later, and some speeches I believe.On January 29 2020 05:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 05:36 Mohdoo wrote:On January 29 2020 04:36 NewSunshine wrote:
I mean, there's quite a bit to unpack there, all wrapped up in a nice condescending bow, but to begin with, the logic that all immigrants must necessarily be well off and competitive to current citizens is just backwards. Just from an incentives standpoint, how is that supposed to work? You're expecting to only have people showing up who've already built a successful life for themselves, but for some reason decide they don't want to continue succeeding where they are anymore? What about children? Orphans? Anyone coming to America for its purported promise of a better life? Your premise for what constitutes "good" immigration instantly excludes all of those people. Are we now adopting the Trump team's perverted interpretation of the Statue of Liberty's mission? Since when?
Try a shoe on the other foot for a change. What if you had to migrate to another country because you had no chance of making it where you were, or if your life were actively in danger. How would it feel to know you couldn't migrate, because they arbitrarily decided you weren't good enough, and then find out they also blame you for your country "being in ruins" (whatever that's supposed to mean)? I suppose, before I waste any more time, I should ask, did any of the above sound unreasonable to you? When you manage to convince yourself that ethics are a function of position, rather than capability, nonsense like that naturally follows. This is just the same thing we've seen 1000 times. The views being expressed by Xxio are not new, unique, or even views we haven't addressed at least 20 times over the course of this thread. Every now and then, someone with Xxio's views walks in and wonders why we need all these structural systems. "But wait, if everyone was great, and capable of things themselves, and had the available money, why not just let people figure it out themselves rather than having an overarching structure that delivers that service?" Because that's how it used to be. The world didn't pop into existence with the USA and everything else established. It used to all be home school. Big problems with that. The one that these anarchists actually care about: When other families do a shitty job, it also negatively influences "good" families. The rich suffer when the poor are left to their own devices. Not just society, but the middle and upper class all benefit from providing a structured, government created education system. We are basically seeing a applied form of boomer philosophy, which roughly goes like this: Stuff is shitty in the past --> reform happens to make things less shitty --> boomer grows up in this great environment where everything is great --> things are great for so long, due to changes made, that people start to wonder if the current system is wasteful --> stuff gets worse. We had conservatives all throughout history. Even they were convinced we needed a school system. Its not that the old world was some socialist paradise and conservatism is some newly birthed movement. Society saw how fucked shit was and made it better. Having the luxury of wondering if public schools are necessary are proof the changes were good. It honestly feels like some people can't grasp the idea we used to live in caves and slowly made improvements to society such that I am typing this on a laptop. I think your overall point is strong but "improvements" is dependent on how one measures. It is kind of like the misunderstanding of evolution as a progressive process leading to an ultimate genetic combination rather than a description of the process of changing the distribution of various genetic combinations. Societies have certainly changed/varied drastically throughout time but to decide that modern US society is better than PNW Indigenous societies is a matter of metrics (and can vary wildly depending on one's position in US society) imo. I like this Hegelian view of history.On January 29 2020 06:45 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 04:20 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 03:12 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. + Show Spoiler +I think you missed a part of the question. how would you define someone likely to require benefits (i.e. what sort of proof)? it seems to me that your bar is rather high, and rather than just not being a public charge you would prefer that the immigrant would bring some sort of surplus to the country. let me know if i'm off base with that assertion. I wonder what your own forefathers might have to say about your take on immigration. What immediate multifaceted benefit to the country does anyone play 99.9% of residents and citizens merely pay taxes and have babies. Do you believe the permission to enter the country a privilege? or is it part of the fundamental fabric of the country? On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Which is more disgraceful: dying in a country for lack of opportunity, or violence, or immigrating to a country with lint in your pocket out of desparation. I think the disgrace is written on their faces when they cross a desert, because we have shut the gates of entry. (im not for open borders, just trying to paint a picture ). Is it possible that you cant imagine "immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength" because you have never been in such a position in your professional/financial/ life? (I dont want an answer on this, its your personal business, but perhaps your point of view is distorted by your own success, and maybe that is something you should examine). Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Agreed denying a green card and stripping citizenship are quite different, yet the net impact on the individual is quite equal would you agree? and if these two people are putting forth the same effort, working, yet still being unable to make ends meet, wouldn't it go directly against the first line of the constitution of this country, "we hold these truths self evident that all men are created equal" if we were to unequally treat these people? i know its alot of questions, but i want to understand your point of view as best I can. From the tone of your post I doubt you are asking in good faith, but I will answer anyways. The burden of proof is on them. Of course the bar is high, as it would be in any self-respecting society. My forefathers would think I'm naive and stand by the comparatively strict policies supported and in place during their time. It is undoubtedly a privilege. In my opinion, it would be a disgrace to have ones country fall into ruin on their watch, and then ask for admittance to another with nothing to offer -- and, if by a miracle of altruism, one was allowed into the country, they should act with utmost respect and gratitude. Thankfully such altruism is common in successful nations, and we sometimes give people in those circumstances the special refugee status. Disagree about net impact and your application of the constitution. + Show Spoiler +Completely in good faith, just asking you as we go to examine some things in your own perspective, as i believe you may be taking too myopic a view. Agreed that the burden of proof is on them, i was just asking what you would expect as sufficient proof to meet your requirements for entry. (not asking you to write the entire law, just give me some examples so that we can have a discussion based on your opinion and not my guess of what your opinion is.)
That you believe immigration is a privilege afforded by this country, and not part in parcel to the country's existence is a point where we will disagree, and I wont bother trying to convince you otherwise as that is too deep a conversation for this venue.
What do you think of people's whose countries have been ruined for the last 2 centuries, is it then their disgrace that they choose to cut their loses in search of something better? You mention disgrace as though these people are coming with smiles on their faces... its kind of a moot point, but to your larger point about altruism, this law, but more importantly your personal take on this law (the high bar) is essentially gutting that altruism.
What does acting with the utmost respect and gratitude mean to you? Would a recent immigrant trying to find work and being employed 40+ hours per week, but still impoverished and collecting housing assistance not be considered as acting with the utmost respect and gratitude? (i think you are conflating law abiding immigrants with the ever present bad hombres? not sure exactly how to unpack what you're trying to convey.) Yes, in my opinion it's their disgrace, but that's not any reason to hate them or anything, if that's what you're thinking. Also not saying that all current immigrants don't act grateful and respectful -- I think a great many are. Previous immigration laws were very strict until recent decades. I don't agree with them all by any means, but that's how it was. Proof could be employment of a certain quality, a lot of money and good prospects, someone committed to support them as a dependent, and so on. I think it would be a terrible disservice to citizens, to let anyone in and hope for the best.On January 29 2020 08:02 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2020 03:23 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 29 2020 02:47 Xxio wrote:On January 29 2020 01:17 Trainrunnef wrote:On January 29 2020 00:23 Xxio wrote:Good decision by the Supreme Court yesterday and another win for the Trump administration. "Under current regulations, the criteria for deciding if an immigrant would become a public charge is whether they are likely to rely on certain cash benefits. The new rule would expand that, defining public charge as someone who relies on cash and non-cash benefits such as housing or food assistance for more than 12 months in a three-year period. The rule also allows immigrants to be declared a "public charge" and denied green cards even if they are employed." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/480114-supreme-court-allows-trump-administration-to-move-forward-withOn January 28 2020 19:00 nojok wrote:On January 28 2020 13:08 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Defamation before his book is only going to make his book more popular. It's the usual far right stuff, they're just pushing to move the debate from what he says to who he is, a typical ad hominem attack. "Radical left" should never be an insult btw, it's pretty telling it is used as one for them. Imo most people use radical left as a descriptor for people like the Bernie staffers who support re-education camps, violent revolution, communism, and so on. I don't think it's an insult but I also don't often hear it in a positive context, because people don't usually self-identify that way. I'm not quite sure how I feel about the decision in the context of the complete guess as to whether someone might become a public charge. it opens up the application process to even more subjective interpretation, and will be applied unevenly. Not a fan. How would you define someone likely to require benefits? It's kind of a gut punch to the (already gutted) american dream, saying no you cant come here with little and pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you have to already be self sufficient and successful. less conflicted regarding the labeling of an existing immigrant as a public charge and denying the green card. Not that I prefer it, but at least i can understand the reasoning behind it and is a clear and actionable set of rules.Although, the fact that you can be labeled a public charge and denied a green card even while being employed doesn't make sense. We dont go around stripping the citizenship of people who are on welfare, they both pay taxes and are presumably here legally so.... just curious what your take is on these two points. I don't think it makes sense to allow people into a country that require welfare, or that citizens would want that. They should be able to prove immediate, multi-faceted benefit to the country. On basic principle, out of respect, I can't imagine immigrating to a country from anything but a position of strength, with a clear case for how I would benefit the country -- much less requiring welfare. That would be disgraceful, and I would fully expect to be sent home. Denying a green card and stripping citizenship are, I think, quite different. Would you consider things like public school (including free college) "welfare"? I understand it to be welfare by definition; although, in its current form, I think the negatives of public school outweigh the positives and wish a combination of apprenticeship and homeschooling to be the norm. I suppose that makes me a radical of some kind. Which definition of welfare is that? the definition I found identifies welfare as "aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need" public school is a service that is bought and paid for by everyone within that particular school district. even if you are renting your rent is going towards the landlord's payment of his property taxes. Not sure if you are using some other philosophical definition of welfare... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/welfare I believe it falls into the category, along with 'free' healthcare. I don't think a relatively very small contribution offsets the rest. To be clear I'm not saying it is that way. This is my understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
47061
9111
245
EPT
