Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by samcraig, Aug 12, 2019 at 7:39 AM.
Let's just build a giant wall on every inch our border and then put a giant roof over America. Then we'd all be super safe from those scary outsiders.
no air conditioning? can we add solar?
We'd have to have AC. I guess we can just put the thermostat behind the desk in the Oval Office or something.
better put a man in charge of the thermostat, women will have all kinds of crazy weather if they are in charge of it
guessing trump wants to find ways to lower what we spend, sure as hell hope he would find another way say like cutting the military budget by 90%
Or remove the walls of all Democratic houses or mansions as much as they hate walls.
So what’s the issue here? I think you will find in most every western country if you apply for a visa of residency you need to provide proof that you’ll be able to sustain yourself and have no recourse to social welfare.
So the USA is shifting more to the Canadian standard of immigration?
But that’s not the same thing. It’s illegal to break into a home.
I actually thought this was US law also. Or it used to be.
Not to mention public vs. private premises.
Exactly. There are no rules at the port of entry.
It is. And has been for over a hundred years.
That's racist according to the democratic party. Anyone should be able to come on in and get social services.
Yeah. It’s a crazy world we live in…
Well they have to get votes from somewhere if they're gonna lose the blue collar working class white supremacists they counted on in years past.
Definitely. They’re playing a political game with peoples lives. If they really cared, they’d try to do something about the millions of homeless and those that are just one step away from being homeless.
There is literally a country’s worth of homeless in America.
That's a housing issue, greedy developers and a lack of a $15 minimum wage. More Sec 8 housing and $15/hr will end homelessness, guaranteed!
U.S. immigration law does include a likely-to-become-a-public charge provision. It makes people inadmissible if it is determined that they are "likely at any time to become a public charge."
The issue here is how we go about deciding whether someone is likely to become a public charge. The administration is changing the rules which govern how we make such decisions. I'd say the changes make sense in some ways but don't in other ways. Some aspects of the changes don't comport well with reality when it comes to determining whether or not something is likely.
Would this apply to people who have kids in public schools? I know quite a few well off immigrants with green cards whose kids attend public schools like everyone else in the neighborhood...
I don't think so. By law your child must attend school, so I could see not being charged for it (free) if mandatory.
Would it apply to people who call the police or fire departments for help? Since police and fire departments are funded by taxpayer money, they are a form of socialism and should be eliminated? What about driving on public roads or going to public parks and libraries? What about people who accept help from the CDC, FEMA, or the national guard during an emergency?
I don't think any of those would apply as their not considered public assistance programs. Exept perhaps some FEMA programs depeding on eligibility requirements. Of course if your entirely on federal assistance with no employment, then your not paying tax dollars that help pay for those services.