An immigration question

Dec 2018
3,941
1,128
New England
Ok folks, have another question for the board. Its spark was a recent ruling against the Trump administration, but this question is not about a specific case but rather a general concept.

For the sake of discussion, let us suppose a legal immigrant comes to our county with all good intensions to find a job, becoming self-sufficient, and eventually becoming a US citizen. Let's also suppose they've arrived at our shores out of choice and are not facing persecution in their native country.

Five years on, it's not worked out so well. While they've committed no crime, they've failed to find gainful employment, and for the most part have been a ward of the state relying on an array of social subsidies to maintain a roof over their head and have food on their table. This person then files for US Citizenship.

The question: should this person be granted citizenship? And the follow-up question: if not, should they be allowed to remain in the country?
 
Feb 2018
543
250
Oregon
What does the law say? Do you think we here on a public forum should pretend to have thoughts superior to what the law says when it was crafted by experts with expert input?
 
Jun 2018
6,184
1,428
South Dakota
What does the law say? Do you think we here on a public forum should pretend to have thoughts superior to what the law says when it was crafted by experts with expert input?
That happens here all the time. Law has nothing to do with the force of opinion and that's created "the court of public opinion" which seems to be a force of it's own.

As for what to do with the immigrant there SHOULD be a mechanism to deport the second instance unless there is an extenuating circumstance. I'd suggest a hearing to decide what's to be done, in line with existing laws.
 
Feb 2018
543
250
Oregon
That happens here all the time. Law has nothing to do with the force of opinion and that's created "the court of public opinion" which seems to be a force of it's own.

As for what to do with the immigrant there SHOULD be a mechanism to deport the second instance unless there is an extenuating circumstance. I'd suggest a hearing to decide what's to be done, in line with existing laws.
What does the law way? I'll bet the idea is that the US gambled that the immigrant could fit in fine, and if the economy is such that the immigrant was among those who have been unable to find work, it's not the fault of the immigrant.

And this is all speculation however and probably happens about 0.0001% of the time.
 
Mar 2017
2,298
339
Matosinhos Portugal
If America has no job.Cannot receive immigrants.Similar Europe.

---------------------------------------------


My country can not receive immigrants, because they have no work, already have immigrants who have never worked, are living at the expense of the Portuguese have home and food, and I see Portuguese sleeping in the streets of Braga Porto or Lisbon as Portuguese gives me a great revolt.

to see Portuguese living poorly, and to see immigrants living well that never contributes to these perks. And because of mismanagement by the Portuguese government, racism tends to increase with immigrants.

---------------------------

Meus país não pode receber imigrantes,porque não tem trabalho,já tem imigrantes que nunca trabalharam,estão a viver á custa dos portuguêses tem casa e comida,e eu ver portugueses a dormir nas ruas de Braga Porto ou Lisboa como português me dá uma grande revolta

de ver portugueses a viver mal,e ver imigrantes a viver bem que nunca contribui para ter essas regalias. E por causa da má gestão por parte do governo português,o racismo tem tendência a aumentar com os imigrantes.
 
Dec 2018
3,941
1,128
New England
What does the law say? Do you think we here on a public forum should pretend to have thoughts superior to what the law says when it was crafted by experts with expert input?
Ah yes, be a good boy. Serve the state, and don't question the law.
 
Dec 2018
3,941
1,128
New England
I know the difference between logical criticism and ignorant partisan bitching about fantasies.
Actually, you don't. My guess is that you gave up critical thinking and basic logic long ago. Your commentary here, at least, doesn't rise above the caricature of a marxist. It's rather comical to a point where, alternatively, I sometimes wonder if you're a parody troll.
 
Dec 2015
17,920
17,020
Arizona
Ok folks, have another question for the board. Its spark was a recent ruling against the Trump administration, but this question is not about a specific case but rather a general concept.

For the sake of discussion, let us suppose a legal immigrant comes to our county with all good intensions to find a job, becoming self-sufficient, and eventually becoming a US citizen. Let's also suppose they've arrived at our shores out of choice and are not facing persecution in their native country.

Five years on, it's not worked out so well. While they've committed no crime, they've failed to find gainful employment, and for the most part have been a ward of the state relying on an array of social subsidies to maintain a roof over their head and have food on their table. This person then files for US Citizenship.

The question: should this person be granted citizenship? And the follow-up question: if not, should they be allowed to remain in the country?
Undocumented immigrants, including DACA holders, are ineligible to receive most federal public benefits, including means-tested benefits such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, sometimes referred to as food stamps), regular Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and are prohibited from purchasing unsubsidized health coverage on ACA exchanges.

Undocumented immigrants may be eligible for a handful of benefits that are deemed necessary to protect life or guarantee safety in dire situations, such as emergency Medicaid, access to treatment in hospital emergency rooms, or access to healthcare and nutrition programs under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
 
  • Like
Reactions: LTP and Biff
Feb 2018
543
250
Oregon
Actually, you don't. My guess is that you gave up critical thinking and basic logic long ago. Your commentary here, at least, doesn't rise above the caricature of a marxist. It's rather comical to a point where, alternatively, I sometimes wonder if you're a parody troll.
You're the one who consistently lacks analysis and relies purely on right wing extremist caricatures with forum activity properly identified as "trolling". I mean look at this thread and how you are trying to make it about me since you lack any argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Biff