Rewarding the lawbreakers is how you make the problem even worse then it already is, there will never be an end to it because now it's known that illegal immigration is really just citizenship with a time delay.
Yet this is essentially the system we have *right now*. If my parents smuggled me into the country at the age of 8, managed to present me as the child of a migrant worker, gets me enrolled in school, and I stay in that system until I graduate, after which I manage to get a driver's license, have a job, and am now also a college student then I am already 99% a citizen. As long as I don't try to get a security clearance, run for political office, or get arrested I can maintain my low profile for the rest of my life.
Rewarding the lawbreakers is how you make the problem even worse then it already is, there will never be an end to it because now it's known that illegal immigration is really just citizenship with a time delay.
Yet this is essentially the system we have *right now*. If my parents smuggled me into the country at the age of 8, managed to present me as the child of a migrant worker, gets me enrolled in school, and I stay in that system until I graduate, after which I manage to get a driver's license, have a job, and am now also a college student then I am already 99% a citizen. As long as I don't try to get a security clearance, run for political office, or get arrested I can maintain my low profile for the rest of my life.
And these lax laws and enforcement are why we have the problem we have now.
Rewarding the lawbreakers is how you make the problem even worse then it already is, there will never be an end to it because now it's known that illegal immigration is really just citizenship with a time delay.
Yet this is essentially the system we have *right now*. If my parents smuggled me into the country at the age of 8, managed to present me as the child of a migrant worker, gets me enrolled in school, and I stay in that system until I graduate, after which I manage to get a driver's license, have a job, and am now also a college student then I am already 99% a citizen. As long as I don't try to get a security clearance, run for political office, or get arrested I can maintain my low profile for the rest of my life.
If you can do all that, you deserve to be a citizen. Some native-born Americans can't do that much!
The globalist/nationalist divide really is the new political schism across the entire western world. The ideology really does come down to whether you care more about the rest of the world at the expense of your own country or care more about your own country then the rest of the world. As much as warm fuzzy ideals give me warm fuzzies, there's no model of open borders I find to be not socially destructive anywhere, from Germany to Sweden to Italy to the UK, and the backlash is already being felt in many places.
Help people where they are, to make where they are better. Teaching a man to fish versus giving him a fish and all that.
Rewarding the lawbreakers is how you make the problem even worse then it already is, there will never be an end to it because now it's known that illegal immigration is really just citizenship with a time delay.
Yet this is essentially the system we have *right now*. If my parents smuggled me into the country at the age of 8, managed to present me as the child of a migrant worker, gets me enrolled in school, and I stay in that system until I graduate, after which I manage to get a driver's license, have a job, and am now also a college student then I am already 99% a citizen. As long as I don't try to get a security clearance, run for political office, or get arrested I can maintain my low profile for the rest of my life.
Some native-born Americans can't do that much!
Maybe we should send those folks to Honduras! Just kidding (sort of)...
@WarChiefZeke I am curious though, what would you consider good immigration laws?
I thought it was @TStael who was banned. That was another interesting poster who I kinda miss.
Both, but TStael was nothing more than a troll. Often starting fights with people because he thought that someone else should have been offended by what the other person said, and they often weren't.
Let's not discuss @Stormvessel's banishment. It's generally not good form to criticize those who are not present to defend themselves, nor are moderator decisions up for public discussion or debate in the first place.
It was an unfortunate but necessary decision made by the moderating team after several weeks of deliberation.
Requiring an I.D to vote is not voter suppression. It is a reasonable requirement. Purging voter rolls is a normal process that happens under Democrat and Republican admins. Why it's normal then and voter suppression now is beyond me.
I think we would be better served with stronger federal laws here and less state by state laws though.
There isn't a single attempt by a Democratic legislature on the State level to make it harder for people to vote anywhere. I have asked people to provide examples at least a half dozen times if they have them, and they can't.
And ID seems like a reasonable requirement. It becomes voter suppression when you the start closing DMV offices where those ID's are issued in minority districts. This has happened in, off the top of my head, at least Wisconsin and Alabama. Saying you want to prevent non-existent voter fraud by requiring ID is one thing. Closing polling locations and DMV offices in predominantly African-American communities sort of gives the game away.
And then we have the Native Americans here is ND, who are being denied voting rights not because they don't have ID, but because they have a PO Box as their mailing address. This has moved WELL beyond photo ID requirements, and everyone (even the people doing it) knows that to be the case.
He was an ideologue spouting his propaganda. Never facts or evidence.
So he's a journalist?
@ThacoBell two things are all I ask for really: legally coming in and laws based on need. What do we need in society versus what skills are offered. The laws of any society should be built in the interests of their citizens, not at the expense of them.
I can even bargain on the merit based laws if we could just agree that illegal immigration is not legal immigration in waiting.
I would ask the same question of the left. Where would you draw the line? If the entire population of the world decided to illegally take up residence in your neighborhood, would you just say "okay"?
I just don't see any democrat politicians willing to make any reasonable restrictions at all nowadays. They are locked into an extremist position.
Requiring an I.D to vote is not voter suppression. It is a reasonable requirement. Purging voter rolls is a normal process that happens under Democrat and Republican admins. Why it's normal then and voter suppression now is beyond me.
I think we would be better served with stronger federal laws here and less state by state laws though.
There isn't a single attempt by a Democratic legislature on the State level to make it harder for people to vote anywhere. I have asked people to provide examples at least a half dozen times if they have them, and they can't.
And ID seems like a reasonable requirement. It becomes voter suppression when you the start closing DMV offices where those ID's are issued in minority districts. This has happened in, off the top of my head, at least Wisconsin and Alabama. Saying you want to prevent non-existent voter fraud by requiring ID is one thing. Closing polling locations and DMV offices in predominantly African-American communities sort of gives the game away.
I agree here, if there is evidence like closing DMV's with no good reason and stuff then it is reasonable to assume the intent is voter suppression.
I'm just saying I.D laws when taken as they are, aren't voter suppression.
Speaking of Native Americans, the dire poverty of some of their reservations is one of the most shameful elements of American society and some of that has to due with the way the laws are set up.
@semiticgod You're right, I'm sorry. I usually try not to, guess it just kinda came out.
@WarChiefZeke What would that look like though? What requirements would need to be met, what would be required for applications? How would you deal with the large illegal population already here? How would you find them? Would they be deported en masse? What if they have ID, graduated college, have a steady job and can contribute to society?
There isn't a single attempt by a Democratic legislature on the State level to make it harder for people to vote anywhere. I have asked people to provide examples at least a half dozen times if they have them, and they can't.
And ID seems like a reasonable requirement. It becomes voter suppression when you the start closing DMV offices where those ID's are issued in minority districts. This has happened in, off the top of my head, at least Wisconsin and Alabama. Saying you want to prevent non-existent voter fraud by requiring ID is one thing. Closing polling locations and DMV offices in predominantly African-American communities sort of gives the game away.
And then we have the Nativr Americans here is ND, who are being denied voting rights not because they don't have ID, but because they have a PO Box as their mailing address. This has moved WELL beyond photo ID requirements, and everyone (even the people doing it) knows that to be the case.
I see tremendous parallels between Voter Laws in the USA and the way we approach our justice system. Inherently, we have to decide approximately how many guilty people we are willing to let go to avoid imprisoning someone who is innocent. Is it 10 to 1? 100 to 1?
Same with Voter Fraud Protection/Suppression. Assuming that Voter Fraud Protection isnt specifically aimed at suppressing the vote (and it sometimes is) - how many votes do you think should be suppressed to avoid someone voting wrongfully? It's an important question because strict voting laws absolutely suppress votes at the margins. It may not be the intent, but it is one of the effects.
The other side is that most studies and investigations find that Voter Fraud is incredibly rare. I saw somewhere that something like only 35 cases of someone "impersonating" another voter were confirmed in 2016. Is it worth suppressing hundreds or thousands of votes to prevent that? I personally dont think so.
Let's not discuss @Stormvessel's banishment. It's generally not good form to criticize those who are not present to defend themselves, nor are moderator decisions up for public discussion or debate in the first place.
It was an unfortunate but necessary decision made by the moderating team after several weeks of deliberation.
I'd make a terrible moderator. It would take threats of physical violence or threatening my family or something for me personally to take offense at somebody in a forum. I also find trolls to be kind of funny and try to tweak them as much as I can. I guess I understand that some behaviors can't be ignored but I can't help missing some of the banter...
Let's not discuss @Stormvessel's banishment. It's generally not good form to criticize those who are not present to defend themselves, nor are moderator decisions up for public discussion or debate in the first place.
It was an unfortunate but necessary decision made by the moderating team after several weeks of deliberation.
I'd make a terrible moderator. It would take threats of physical violence or threatening my family or something for me personally to take offense at somebody in a forum. I also find trolls to be kind of funny and try to tweak them as much as I can. I guess I understand that some behaviors can't be ignored but I can't help missing some of the banter...
I agree here, if there is evidence like closing DMV's with no good reason and stuff then it is reasonable to assume the intent is voter suppression.
I'm just saying I.D laws when taken as they are, aren't voter suppression.
Fair enough. I do disagree with how voter ID laws are implemented, but I'll acknowledge that they have a justification, though I think the justification is invalid: in-person voter fraud is rare for numerous reasons. In 2016, the number of cases was in the double digits, out of millions of votes.
What really baffles me are the other policies, which don't even have justifications, whether weak or strong. Removing tens of thousands of people from voting rolls on false grounds, shutting down voting stations in Democratic-leaning neighborhoods, and tweaking the rules to discriminate against certain groups have no purpose but to stop people from voting. The PO box thing was specifically because the left-leaning Native American population disproportionately uses PO boxes. In some cases, voter ID requirements have accepted gun licenses (disproportionately owned by conservatives) but not student ID's (disproportionately owned by liberals). Not to mention the fact that poor people are less likely to have photo ID's (if you can't afford a car, you're probably not going to have a driver's license) and therefore have to jump through extra hoops that other people do not.
These are all very blatant attempts to stop people from voting. There isn't an alternative explanation for these sorts of policies; the motive is strictly to manipulate elections.
Speaking of Native Americans, the dire poverty of some of their reservations is one of the most shameful elements of American society and some of that has to due with the way the laws are set up.
I'm not sure I even support the concept of Native American reservations. They're ostensibly supposed to secure the interests of the Native American population, but if Native Americans are poorer in the reservations than outside them, what purpose are they serving?
I haven't studied reservations, so please let me know if I'm missing something.
I agree here, if there is evidence like closing DMV's with no good reason and stuff then it is reasonable to assume the intent is voter suppression.
I'm just saying I.D laws when taken as they are, aren't voter suppression.
Fair enough. I do disagree with how voter ID laws are implemented, but I'll acknowledge that they have a justification, though I think the justification is invalid: in-person voter fraud is rare for numerous reasons. In 2016, the number of cases was in the double digits, out of millions of votes.
What really baffles me are the other policies, which don't even have justifications, whether weak or strong. Removing tens of thousands of people from voting rolls on false grounds, shutting down voting stations in Democratic-leaning neighborhoods, and tweaking the rules to discriminate against certain groups have no purpose but to stop people from voting. The PO box thing was specifically because the left-leaning Native American population disproportionately uses PO boxes. In some cases, voter ID requirements have accepted gun licenses (disproportionately owned by conservatives) but not student ID's (disproportionately owned by liberals). Not to mention the fact that poor people are less likely to have photo ID's (if you can't afford a car, you're probably not going to have a driver's license) and therefore have to jump through extra hoops that other people do not.
These are all very blatant attempts to stop people from voting. There isn't an alternative explanation for these sorts of policies; the motive is strictly to manipulate elections.
Speaking of Native Americans, the dire poverty of some of their reservations is one of the most shameful elements of American society and some of that has to due with the way the laws are set up.
I'm not sure I even support the concept of Native American reservations. They're ostensibly supposed to secure the interests of the Native American population, but if Native Americans are poorer in the reservations than outside them, what purpose are they serving?
I haven't studied reservations, so please let me know if I'm missing something.
I think the reservations were an attempt to allow the Native Americans to preserve their culture. The fact that they're poor may be partly due to their culture not really embracing our Western ideals of consumerism and capitalism. If the land given to them was better quality it might have worked out better for them but alas we were too damned greedy for that...
Is it worth suppressing hundreds or thousands of votes to prevent that? I personally dont think so.
It's taking away your freedom for the illusion of security. Same thing with airport security. We have one dipstick try and use a shoe bomb and now everyone takes off their shoes like that's a big deal towards safety.
And the suppressing of votes is not an unwanted side effect of these voter suppression laws, it is the main drawing point for these Republicans. It's not a bug, it's the feature.
They don't want certain people to vote. This is a scheme to make sure they can't vote. They can't win on the issues so they want to cheat or game the system. They know full well in person voter fraud is virtually non-existent but that doesn't matter the goal is to suppress votes.
There is a difference between immigration and asylum.
Many of the people making their way to the United States are doing so for asylum. According to US law, one must be on US soil to file for asylum. This does not make them illegal immigration. I am also going to assume that the caravan will attempt to cross at a legal point of entry.
Not everyone who claims asylum/refugee are granted it. It's up to the individual to demonstrate that they will suffer prosecution based on Race, Religion, Nationality, Membership in a particular social group or Political opinion. If an individual can't prove that, they will be deported.
It should also be noted that refugee/asylum status is not permanent. If situations change in a person's home country that results in them not being persecuted then they will be deported if they haven't been approved of permanent residency.
Is it worth suppressing hundreds or thousands of votes to prevent that? I personally dont think so.
It's taking away your freedom for the illusion of security. Same thing with airport security. We have one dipstick try and use a shoe bomb and now everyone takes off their shoes like that's a big deal towards safety.
Not related to voter suppression but your first statement made me think of this.
We had one dipstick cut himself while opening a box in my company of 11,000 US employees. The answer wasn't, oops I guess that guy should have paid more attention while he was cutting, it was every employee is no longer allowed to use a box opener we'll give everybody a 'special' modified knife that you have to use to open boxes even though it can't cut butter. Needless to say, 99% of employees improperly used their scissors to open boxes...
There is a difference between immigration and asylum.
Many of the people making their way to the United States are doing so for asylum. According to US law, one must be on US soil to file for asylum. This does not make them illegal immigration. I am also going to assume that the caravan will attempt to cross at a legal point of entry.
Not everyone who claims asylum/refugee are granted it. It's up to the individual to demonstrate that they will suffer prosecution based on Race, Religion, Nationality, Membership in a particular social group or Political opinion. If an individual can't prove that, they will be deported.
It should also be noted that refugee/asylum status is not permanent. If situations change in a person's home country that results in them not being persecuted then they will be deported if they haven't been approved of permanent residency.
The trouble is that the US is a rather large country. Keeping track of people here on asylum is virtually impossible unless we keep them together in camps (unsavory to say the least). We're not required to accept refugees and certainly wouldn't be the only country not to accept them. Hell, if Mexico is so willing to let them march through their country maybe they should just take them in. I'd even be willing to grant Mexico some foreign aid dollars to help this happen...
Edit: Oooh, I have an even better idea. How about like Mexico, we give them safe passage to march to Canada? I wonder how willing our northern neighbor would be to grant them asylum or even better, full citizenship!
There is a difference between immigration and asylum.
Many of the people making their way to the United States are doing so for asylum. According to US law, one must be on US soil to file for asylum. This does not make them illegal immigration. I am also going to assume that the caravan will attempt to cross at a legal point of entry.
Not everyone who claims asylum/refugee are granted it. It's up to the individual to demonstrate that they will suffer prosecution based on Race, Religion, Nationality, Membership in a particular social group or Political opinion. If an individual can't prove that, they will be deported.
It should also be noted that refugee/asylum status is not permanent. If situations change in a person's home country that results in them not being persecuted then they will be deported if they haven't been approved of permanent residency.
Plus, the Trump Administration is working to cut down on *legal* immigration, as well. So some people are screwed no matter what they do. They try to cross legally, and they can't because places to cross legally are being shut down. So, if they are desperate, they cross illegally.
Edit: Oooh, I have an even better idea. How about like Mexico, we give them safe passage to march to Canada? I wonder how willing our northern neighbor would be to grant them asylum or even better, full citizenship!
You mean like all the Haitians? Oh! or how about all the other refugees flying to the united states, taking a taxi to a corn field and crossing there, where we have our own border patrol waiting to take them to the closest immigration processing station for them to claim asylum?
I've posted before on how Toronto was completely filled up with refugee claimants that even university dorms were completely filled with them. We still process them all in under four months.
Then there is also the safe third country law that was signed by Canada and the United States. Basically claimants need to file asylum at the first safe country they enter. If they're coming from the south, that's usually the US. If their coming from the West, that's usually Canada.
There is a difference between immigration and asylum...
It should also be noted that refugee/asylum status is not permanent. If situations change in a person's home country that results in them not being persecuted then they will be deported if they haven't been approved of permanent residency.
Speaking of which in May 2018 which was like 100 years ago in Trump Scandals
Trump administration ends protected status for 60,000 Hondurans.
The decision was called a "death sentence" by a labor activist, and "tragic" and "wrongheaded" by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republcian.
Gee doesn't this migrant caravan have a lot of people fleeing Honduras a couple months after Trump decided it was totally fine and he was going to send everyone back?
I agree here, if there is evidence like closing DMV's with no good reason and stuff then it is reasonable to assume the intent is voter suppression.
I'm just saying I.D laws when taken as they are, aren't voter suppression.
Fair enough. I do disagree with how voter ID laws are implemented, but I'll acknowledge that they have a justification, though I think the justification is invalid: in-person voter fraud is rare for numerous reasons. In 2016, the number of cases was in the double digits, out of millions of votes.
What really baffles me are the other policies, which don't even have justifications, whether weak or strong. Removing tens of thousands of people from voting rolls on false grounds, shutting down voting stations in Democratic-leaning neighborhoods, and tweaking the rules to discriminate against certain groups have no purpose but to stop people from voting. The PO box thing was specifically because the left-leaning Native American population disproportionately uses PO boxes. In some cases, voter ID requirements have accepted gun licenses (disproportionately owned by conservatives) but not student ID's (disproportionately owned by liberals). Not to mention the fact that poor people are less likely to have photo ID's (if you can't afford a car, you're probably not going to have a driver's license) and therefore have to jump through extra hoops that other people do not.
These are all very blatant attempts to stop people from voting. There isn't an alternative explanation for these sorts of policies; the motive is strictly to manipulate elections.
Speaking of Native Americans, the dire poverty of some of their reservations is one of the most shameful elements of American society and some of that has to due with the way the laws are set up.
I'm not sure I even support the concept of Native American reservations. They're ostensibly supposed to secure the interests of the Native American population, but if Native Americans are poorer in the reservations than outside them, what purpose are they serving?
I haven't studied reservations, so please let me know if I'm missing something.
I think the reservations were an attempt to allow the Native Americans to preserve their culture. The fact that they're poor may be partly due to their culture not really embracing our Western ideals of consumerism and capitalism. If the land given to them was better quality it might have worked out better for them but alas we were too damned greedy for that...
I worked valet at a Native American tribe owned casino well over a decade ago. I can vouch for the fact that they provided many jobs to Native people, and in fact give preference to them (which only makes sense given the context of the situation). It's weird. They have their own tribal security that might as well be cops, but the actual police of the County also have jurisdiction. I can't even really explain it, the casinos in Minnesota are almost like little islands of land that exist in a grey area. They have some autonomy but are in no way sovereign nations.
Comments
Help people where they are, to make where they are better. Teaching a man to fish versus giving him a fish and all that.
See what you got me into @Balrog99
@WarChiefZeke I am curious though, what would you consider good immigration laws?
It was an unfortunate but necessary decision made by the moderating team after several weeks of deliberation.
And ID seems like a reasonable requirement. It becomes voter suppression when you the start closing DMV offices where those ID's are issued in minority districts. This has happened in, off the top of my head, at least Wisconsin and Alabama. Saying you want to prevent non-existent voter fraud by requiring ID is one thing. Closing polling locations and DMV offices in predominantly African-American communities sort of gives the game away.
And then we have the Native Americans here is ND, who are being denied voting rights not because they don't have ID, but because they have a PO Box as their mailing address. This has moved WELL beyond photo ID requirements, and everyone (even the people doing it) knows that to be the case.
@ThacoBell two things are all I ask for really: legally coming in and laws based on need. What do we need in society versus what skills are offered. The laws of any society should be built in the interests of their citizens, not at the expense of them.
I can even bargain on the merit based laws if we could just agree that illegal immigration is not legal immigration in waiting.
I would ask the same question of the left. Where would you draw the line? If the entire population of the world decided to illegally take up residence in your neighborhood, would you just say "okay"?
I just don't see any democrat politicians willing to make any reasonable restrictions at all nowadays. They are locked into an extremist position.
closing DMV's with no good reason and stuff then it is reasonable to assume the intent is voter suppression.
I'm just saying I.D laws when taken as they are, aren't voter suppression.
Speaking of Native Americans, the dire poverty of some of their reservations is one of the most shameful elements of American society and some of that has to due with the way the laws are set up.
@WarChiefZeke What would that look like though? What requirements would need to be met, what would be required for applications? How would you deal with the large illegal population already here? How would you find them? Would they be deported en masse? What if they have ID, graduated college, have a steady job and can contribute to society?
I see tremendous parallels between Voter Laws in the USA and the way we approach our justice system. Inherently, we have to decide approximately how many guilty people we are willing to let go to avoid imprisoning someone who is innocent. Is it 10 to 1? 100 to 1?
Same with Voter Fraud Protection/Suppression. Assuming that Voter Fraud Protection isnt specifically aimed at suppressing the vote (and it sometimes is) - how many votes do you think should be suppressed to avoid someone voting wrongfully? It's an important question because strict voting laws absolutely suppress votes at the margins. It may not be the intent, but it is one of the effects.
The other side is that most studies and investigations find that Voter Fraud is incredibly rare. I saw somewhere that something like only 35 cases of someone "impersonating" another voter were confirmed in 2016. Is it worth suppressing hundreds or thousands of votes to prevent that? I personally dont think so.
What really baffles me are the other policies, which don't even have justifications, whether weak or strong. Removing tens of thousands of people from voting rolls on false grounds, shutting down voting stations in Democratic-leaning neighborhoods, and tweaking the rules to discriminate against certain groups have no purpose but to stop people from voting. The PO box thing was specifically because the left-leaning Native American population disproportionately uses PO boxes. In some cases, voter ID requirements have accepted gun licenses (disproportionately owned by conservatives) but not student ID's (disproportionately owned by liberals). Not to mention the fact that poor people are less likely to have photo ID's (if you can't afford a car, you're probably not going to have a driver's license) and therefore have to jump through extra hoops that other people do not.
These are all very blatant attempts to stop people from voting. There isn't an alternative explanation for these sorts of policies; the motive is strictly to manipulate elections. I'm not sure I even support the concept of Native American reservations. They're ostensibly supposed to secure the interests of the Native American population, but if Native Americans are poorer in the reservations than outside them, what purpose are they serving?
I haven't studied reservations, so please let me know if I'm missing something.
And the suppressing of votes is not an unwanted side effect of these voter suppression laws, it is the main drawing point for these Republicans. It's not a bug, it's the feature.
They don't want certain people to vote. This is a scheme to make sure they can't vote. They can't win on the issues so they want to cheat or game the system. They know full well in person voter fraud is virtually non-existent but that doesn't matter the goal is to suppress votes.
Many of the people making their way to the United States are doing so for asylum. According to US law, one must be on US soil to file for asylum. This does not make them illegal immigration. I am also going to assume that the caravan will attempt to cross at a legal point of entry.
Not everyone who claims asylum/refugee are granted it. It's up to the individual to demonstrate that they will suffer prosecution based on Race, Religion, Nationality, Membership in a particular social group or Political opinion. If an individual can't prove that, they will be deported.
It should also be noted that refugee/asylum status is not permanent. If situations change in a person's home country that results in them not being persecuted then they will be deported if they haven't been approved of permanent residency.
And you also have to remember, even people who are doing everything right in an immigration stand point are also being targeted for removal. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/20/canadian-deported-despite-having-served-for-us-military
We had one dipstick cut himself while opening a box in my company of 11,000 US employees. The answer wasn't, oops I guess that guy should have paid more attention while he was cutting, it was every employee is no longer allowed to use a box opener we'll give everybody a 'special' modified knife that you have to use to open boxes even though it can't cut butter. Needless to say, 99% of employees improperly used their scissors to open boxes...
Edit: Oooh, I have an even better idea. How about like Mexico, we give them safe passage to march to Canada? I wonder how willing our northern neighbor would be to grant them asylum or even better, full citizenship!
HOW THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS QUIETLY TRYING TO REDUCE LEGAL IMMIGRATION
https://psmag.com/social-justice/how-trump-is-trying-to-reduce-legal-immigration
Trump administration formally proposes plan to limit legal immigration to those not dependent on public benefits
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-administration-formally-proposes-plan-to-limit-legal-immigration-to-those-not-dependent-on-public-benefits
Now the Trump administration wants to limit citizenship for legal immigrants
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/now-trump-administration-wants-limit-citizenship-legal-immigrants-n897931
I've posted before on how Toronto was completely filled up with refugee claimants that even university dorms were completely filled with them. We still process them all in under four months.
Then there is also the safe third country law that was signed by Canada and the United States. Basically claimants need to file asylum at the first safe country they enter. If they're coming from the south, that's usually the US. If their coming from the West, that's usually Canada.
Trump administration ends protected status for 60,000 Hondurans.
The decision was called a "death sentence" by a labor activist, and "tragic" and "wrongheaded" by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republcian.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/trump-administration-ends-protected-status-60-000-hondurans-n871496
Gee doesn't this migrant caravan have a lot of people fleeing Honduras a couple months after Trump decided it was totally fine and he was going to send everyone back?