Nearly Half of Americans Are ‘Financially Fragile’

[ready4ONE 5,400]

When we learn that "nearly half" of Americans are "financially fragile" as determined by what is essentially an assets test, it makes sense to incorporate an assets test in the AOS.

No it doesn't since assets can be lost. There is no magic formula and the rich do not deserve to be the only Americans worthy of finding love abroad.

[^_^ 5,021]

No it doesn't since assets can be lost. There is no magic formula and the rich do not deserve to be the only Americans worthy of finding love abroad.

Assets can be lost and income streams can evaporate. So what are you suggesting, that we not income-test either?

Fact is, someone without assets today has less of a chance of having any in a year than someone with assets today. If you don't believe that, there's a good chance you have very little in the way of assets.

We should not be allowing the "financially fragile" to import foreign spouses until the "financially fragile" no longer are.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Assets can be lost and income streams can evaporate. So what are you suggesting, that we not income-test either?

Fact is, someone without assets today has less of a chance of having any in a year than someone with assets today. If you don't believe that, there's a good chance you have very little in the way of assets.

We should not be allowing the "financially fragile" to import foreign spouses until the "financially fragile" no longer are.

Why? You don't need to be rich to be an American do you? You don't need to be rich to fall in love do you? Why allow the poor to marry fellow citizens and have babies they can't afford?

Why not develop an asset test and kill off all Americans who fail to meet your vision of how much wealth an American needs to be worthy of living?

[^_^ 5,021]

Why? You don't need to be rich to be an American do you? You don't need to be rich to fall in love do you? Why allow the poor to marry fellow citizens and have babies they can't afford?

Why not develop an asset test and kill off all Americans who fail to meet your vision of how much wealth an American needs to be worthy of living?

Immigration is a privilege, you hysterical fool.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Immigration is a privilege, you hysterical fool.

And I got through the process you pontificating putz! :-)

[slim 1,514]

yet another reason to require an assets test in addition to an income test on the AOS.

By that rationale we should be kicking out poor Americans after six months of not meeting the poverty guide.

I'm all for that!

Fact is, someone without assets today has less of a chance of having any in a year

That's not true at all.

Someone coming from a poor country who works hard can come over here and work at the same pace and they'll end up with a bunch of assets. In one year they'll probably have things like a car and possibly a house. They'll be comfortably over the poverty level. At the very least they'll be doing just fine.

We should not be allowing the "financially fragile" to import foreign spouses until the "financially fragile" no longer are.

By that rationale we should cease allowing the American poor to reproduce, marry, etc. If they can't afford to care for their families, they shouldn't have them!

Immigration is a privilege, you hysterical fool.

Congress sets the standards for immigration. It would be very easy for congress to waive the poverty guidelines.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Immigration is a privilege, you hysterical fool.

I'm being serious when I say behind most privileges there is a right. There are so many rights that are heavily curtailed by privileges in the modern world that its hard to say that any rights still exist.

[slim 1,514]

I'm being serious when I say behind most privileges there is a right. There are so many rights that are heavily curtailed by privileges in the modern world that its hard to say that any rights still exist.

That's part of the problem in the modern days. We're so conditioned to think we must outline why something is legal that we forget it's legal unless specifically outlawed.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

This is why there should be an assets test in addition to an income test on the Affidavit of Support.

The purpose of the affidavit of support is not to determine that the peop;e will be living under a bridge or not. no one cares about that. The government wants to make sure they can collect any benefits received. The government is covering their @ss, not ours.

There should be NO affidavit of support. Who cares if you can support your family, foreign or domestic? That's your problem. Handle it.

What there should be is a system of personal liberty and personal responsibility. If there are no benefits to collect, there is no need to recoup money. The problem is not that some people get benefits they do not deserve, the problem is that the government is handing out benefits to begin with.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

That's part of the problem in the modern days. We're so conditioned to think we must outline why something is legal that we forget it's legal unless specifically outlawed.

That is not a mistale Slim. It is the plan. We are also conditioned and treated that the money we earn is the "government's" and the government allows us to keep a portion of it and in fact that is how it works with witholding.

The "problem" is much more basic than usually presented. The problem of illegal immigration is simply because we do not severely punish anyone that hires them. It has nothing to do with fences, citizenship by birth, ID for voters or any of that rot.

Give people back the taxes that are deducted from their paycheck and suddenly they become much less "fragile"

[SuperDuper! 230]

Give people back the taxes that are deducted from their paycheck and suddenly they become much less "fragile" ?

That is pure fantasy. Tax payers in the US are much less burdened compared to other places in the world. Try living in Belgium or Germany.

[^_^ 5,021]

There should be NO affidavit of support.

Yeah that would have made your visajourney much simpler. Everyone has seen those posts.

[Ready to do it 101]

Now you are onto something. Obviously no one is for killing anyone. However, imagine a system without ANY benefits for ANYONE!! Survival of the fittest. Support yourself, if you cannot... it's your own problem. I'm all for an amnesty for 99% of the illegals in the US. The problem is benefits. No one should get them... not illegals and not legal tax paying citizens. I'd be willing to bet the majority of the latino immigrants if offered amnesty would survive just fine in the US. The problem in the US isn't illegals. The problem is the lazy legals unwilling to go work. Some might say, but there just aren't any jobs. I'd be willing to bet if there was no such thing as benefits then people would be singing a different tune. So, yes you are onto something. Survival of the fittest... any race, any color, anyone welcome in the US... open border with no benefits for anyone.

Ah... and the Affadavit of supports are the stupidest thing ever involved in the immigration process. I'm all for anyone who wants to come to the US, so be it. Support yourself though and don't bring down others, which is exactly what an affadivit of support does potentially.

Why not develop an asset test and kill off all Americans who fail to meet your vision of how much wealth an American needs to be worthy of living?

Edited May 25, 2011 by Ready to do it

[slim 1,514]

the problem is that the government is handing out benefits to begin with.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say government should hand out benefits.

The fact that we're doing it now means it would be very easy to stop. Simply stop. That's it.

Give people back the taxes that are deducted from their paycheck and suddenly they become much less "fragile"

Society as a whole would be less fragile since folks could do what they pleased with their own money.

Tax payers in the US are much less burdened compared to other places in the world. Try living in Belgium or Germany.

We don't live in Belgium or Germany nor do we care to. It baffles me when folks make this, "but the rest of the world..." argument because the rest of the world is not America. There's a reason for that.

The problem is the lazy legals unwilling to go work.

I'm all for a two-for-one swap where we load up buses full of lazy ineffective accidental americans and keep those who've worked hard to get here and survive. Heck, I'd go three-for-one even!