DACA DELUSION: Kirsten Gillibrand Says ‘Chain Migration’ is a ‘RACIST SLUR’

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, AshMarty said:

So you are suggesting we focus our energy on the poor immigrants rather than focus on improving the lives of the poor USC citizens? I think the country is pretty outweighed with poverty as it is.

 

In order to help the USCs that are already here we need to look at what benefits the country. I have no issues with having parents come over but I think the regulations need to be readdressed in order to set up a family for a successful immigration experience. Asking someone if they make a small percent over the poverty line does not set up an adult immigrant that has no interest in working for success. Poverty is not what people immigrating to the US are hoping to live in. Setting up realistic standards for what would make a successful retirement in the US as an immigration standard would be a much better idea for the individual immigrating and for the country as a whole. Older immigrants aren't refugees (fleeing from their country) they are making a lifestyle choice. 

i don't think it's a one or the other deal. i know that the american dream is supposed to be open to anyone, from anywhere. without that openness and diversity the dream looses its luster.

 

i think the financial aspect of sponsorship is pretty sound. i've read of spouses here that are planning to start their families and would like to bring over their parents as childcare. just one example. but i don't think we can say older immigrants excluding refugees are simply making a lifestyle choice. as the divide between wealthy and working families grows larger here in the us, families often have to pool resources. immigrants should have that choice as well.

[AshMarty 359]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Opinions of the actual law/practice aside,

 

I wouldn't say the term "Chain Migration" is a racist slur. Chain migration applies to ANY immigrant coming in through a family connection. Their race doesn't matter. If my wife tried to bring her parents over to the US from the UK that would be chain migration.

 

The term isn't really discriminating against particular races. It's discriminating against immigrants in general. It's "immigrantist" I guess? Generally I find it used in an "Anti-immigration" way, or by people who are speaking of it negatively. I tend to find people who support the process using other phrases ("Family reunification").

This discussion reminds me of people that were saying Obama care is terrible and would never use it. Only to find out they were enrolled in the ACA program which turns out was really another name for Obamacare to their surprise. Politicians and their rhetoric 

[smilesammich 10,727]

9 minutes ago, bcking said:

Opinions of the actual law/practice aside,

 

I wouldn't say the term "Chain Migration" is a racist slur. Chain migration applies to ANY immigrant coming in through a family connection. Their race doesn't matter. If my wife tried to bring her parents over to the US from the UK that would be chain migration.

 

The term isn't really discriminating against particular races. It's discriminating against immigrants in general. It's "immigrantist" I guess? Generally I find it used in an "Anti-immigration" way, or by people who are speaking of it negatively. I tend to find people who support the process using other phrases ("Family reunification").

well we know that trump, for example, would not be too perturbed if it were a family from norway chain migrating but he might throw himself into a expletive laced rant if the family were from haiti. that feels racist to me. 

[AshMarty 359]

12 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i don't think it's a one or the other deal. i know that the american dream is supposed to be open to anyone, from anywhere. without that openness and diversity the dream looses its luster.

 

i think the financial aspect of sponsorship is pretty sound. i've read of spouses here that are planning to start their families and would like to bring over their parents as childcare. just one example. but i don't think we can say older immigrants excluding refugees are simply making a lifestyle choice. as the divide between wealthy and working families grows larger here in the us, families often have to pool resources. immigrants should have that choice as well.

I think this topic has been discussed to death on this forum over the past 2 weeks but aging costs money (more than daycare costs for most). All for having your parents come over and help if you/they have the insurance/financials setup to do so. Many people don't understand the healthcare system costs in the US and perfectly healthy parents one week, might not be so healthy next week.

 

I will also go to the example of my 66 year old father who retired 6 months prior to his stroke. Played golf every day and was active and not over weight. His emergency transport was accidentally sent to my parents house as a self pay bill, they mistook his insurance information during the life threatening event. It was 80,000 dollars for the helicopter to send him from one hospital to another for an emergency surgery (This is just transport, not the 5 days of ICU, or 4 weeks of inpatient rehab, or followup surgery a year later). We don't require health care coverage for parents that are immigrating here currently, so hopefully everyone has a couple of million dollars saved up just in case. Emergencies happen and are not planned, hence to setup up immigrants for a successful transition to the US for retirement we should set up requirements that are reasonable standards (ask for insurance proof and reasonable funds). 

Edited February 6, 2018 by AshMarty

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, AshMarty said:

I think this topic has been discussed to death on this forum over the past 2 weeks but aging costs money (more than daycare costs for most). All for having your parents come over and help if you/their have the insurance/financials setup to do so. Many people don't understand the healthcare system costs in the US and perfectly health parents one week might not be so health next week.

 

I will also go to the example of my 66 year old father who retired 6 months prior to his stroke. Played golf every day and was active and not over weight. His emergency transport was accidentally sent to my parents house as a self pay bill. It was 80,000 dollars for the helicopter to send him from one hospital to another for an emergency surgery (This is just transport, not the 5 days of ICU, or 4 weeks of inpatient rehab, or followup surgery a year later). We don't require health care coverage for parents that are immigrating here currently, so hopefully everyone has a couple of million dollars saved up just in case. Emergencies happen and are not planned, hence to setup up immigrants for a successful transition to the US for retirement we should set up requirements that are reasonable standards. 

imo the us healthcare system is impossible because virtually no one - citizen or immigrant - has a couple million dollars saved up for the inevitable cost of aging. that's why americans are always filing bankruptcy for 'emergencies'. but i'm actually pretty far removed from ever being able to retire myself, so i probably shouldn't have an opinion about immigrants with or without the means to retire here, honestly. anybody know of any countries that want to take in old americans with no savings? 

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

well we know that trump, for example, would not be too perturbed if it were a family from norway chain migrating but he might throw himself into a expletive laced rant if the family were from haiti. that feels racist to me. 

That response would be racist, I agree.

 

But if he was still using the term "chain migration" to apply to both groups of people, the term itself isn't discriminating, or implying any discrimination. He would be discriminating, for sure. But not in the use of that phrase.

Now if he said "Oh that lovely Norwegian family is coming here to reunite with their family" and then "That poor haitian family is full of criminals and they are to use chain migration to enter our country"...then yes it would be a discriminatory term in that case. But it seems to be used quite broadly, and then their opinions are added after the fact. 

 

13 minutes ago, AshMarty said:

This discussion reminds me of people that were saying Obama care is terrible and would never use it. Only to find out they were enrolled in the ACA program which turns out was really another name for Obamacare to their surprise. Politicians and their rhetoric 

So much of what many in the public grasp from politics/current events is small bits of information from "here and there". It's the small phrases/terms that stick in people's minds. That's why these sorts of catch phrases are used, and why people latch onto them. Easier to remember than the actual full details of the law.

[AshMarty 359]

5 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

imo the us healthcare system is impossible because virtually no one - citizen or immigrant - has a couple million dollars saved up for the inevitable cost of aging. that's why americans are always filing bankruptcy for 'emergencies'. but i'm actually pretty far removed from ever being able to retire myself, so i probably shouldn't have an opinion about immigrants with or without the means to retire here, honestly. anybody know of any countries that want to take in old americans with no savings? 

I work as a  healthcare provider and work regularly with getting approvals and denials from insurance companies. Our system is flawed but it is the current system we have, to help outsiders understand it we should provide them with guidelines that would allow them to be successful within it, and not set them up for failure.

 

Medicare is terrible coverage for retirement (I will make sure I have a secondary insurance when I am retirement age) but that is another conversation all together. I was just discussing this with a retired nurse yesterday. 

Edited February 6, 2018 by AshMarty

[Dashinka 23,348]

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

no, but if one has the means to bring over family they've left behind and want to bring them over that's their business imo. i think we all want the option to bring over our own families but consider others that we don't know personally as simply a long line of individuals waiting their turn. in reality, the long line of individuals is comprised of someone's family..calling it chain immigration dehumanizes the process.

just like we see people here say, "i don't want to bring over my family, my family doesn't want to come, i decided to come here and knew the consequence of leaving family behind" it's all anecdotal until the option is off the table for an individual, personally.

So Trump would be fine if he were just politically correct?  Btw, who invented the term "chain migration"?

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

That response would be racist, I agree.

 

But if he was still using the term "chain migration" to apply to both groups of people, the term itself isn't discriminating, or implying any discrimination. He would be discriminating, for sure. But not in the use of that phrase.

Now if he said "Oh that lovely Norwegian family is coming here to reunite with their family" and then "That poor haitian family is full of criminals and they are to use chain migration to enter our country"...then yes it would be a discriminatory term in that case. But it seems to be used quite broadly, and then their opinions are added after the fact. 

 

i don't know exactly what all gillibrand said but, i was coming at it from the angle of..you never see the daily caller or breitbart refer to it as 'family reunification' unless they're taking a blow at schumer/democrats. they like to use terms like 'chain migration' and 'open borders' and play up any criminal act by an illegal they can find..chain migration is part of their narrative to dehumanize the process of family reunification. 

 

2 minutes ago, AshMarty said:

I work as a  healthcare provider and work regularly with getting approvals and denials from insurance companies. Our system is flawed but it is the current system we have, to help outsiders understand it we should provide them with guidelines that would allow them to be successful within it, and not set them up for failure.

 

Medicare is terrible coverage for retirement (I will make sure I have a secondary insurance when I am retirement age) but that is another conversation all together. I was just discussing this with a retired nurse yesterday. 

what do you mean by set them up for failure, how do we do that?

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So Trump would be fine if he were just politically correct?  Btw, who invented the term "chain migration"?

i don't know who invented the term and it doesn't matter. what matters is how it's used now. i mean, we're all using it right now so obviously it is not, at face value, a racist term. but it can be used that way.

trump would be fine if he weren't racist, or a buffoon. but alas...

[Dashinka 23,348]

2 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i don't know who invented the term and it doesn't matter. what matters is how it's used now. i mean, we're all using it right now so obviously it is not, at face value, a racist term. but it can be used that way.

trump would be fine if he weren't racist, or a buffoon. but alas...

Of course, as defined by the MDL, everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is racist. 

[yuna628 9,540]

Here's the thing....

 

The average person has no idea what it takes to legally immigrate. Everywhere we go people ask us how my husband got here. They are ever so happy and sometimes patronizing to hear he came here ''the right way'', but they have no idea how he actually got here and what you have to do or how much it costs or requires. In fact they usually launch into some way they think immigration works, eg - you just get off a plane, move in, and somehow announce yourself to the government akin to going into the DMV or something... and invariably they believe it's all done within the space of a few hours. There's others that simply think you are immediately legal upon marriage with no other evidence to provide. They become bewildered when I explain about green cards (2yr and 10yr) and EADs, the restrictions and requirements, and the wait times. Almost all of them think that you can work legally as soon as you set foot in the country (as our CPA thought the other day bless his heart!).

 

So when they hear the term chain migration... they suddenly see conjured into their heads a massive throng of people at the gates al at once. Swarms of parents, siblings, children, cousins, aunts, uncles, 3rd cousin removed you get the drift... something out of Walking Dead, and it's simply not true. It doesn't work that way. But such hyperbole is counted on to get that image into the public lexicon. POTUS implies via his 'speaking' that one person can bring in 50 or 100 people... and it is not true. Notice that media doesn't try and counter it or even talk about it or discuss the contents in bills that are over 400 pages long. Politicians aren't going to talk about the heart of bills like this, it's too easy to sell something when it's glossed over. There are a few conservative/libertarian organizations that have been good about diving into the meat of bills like RAISE and SAFA, and what they discover is very very bad.

 

Who is going to tell USCs they are actually currently here due to the result of chain migration? Who is going to tone down the hyperbole and think a while?

Edited February 6, 2018 by yuna628

[AshMarty 359]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

i don't know exactly what all gillibrand said but, i was coming at it from the angle of..you never see the daily caller or breitbart refer to it as 'family reunification' unless they're taking a blow at schumer/democrats. they like to use terms like 'chain migration' and 'open borders' and play up any criminal act by an illegal they can find..chain migration is part of their narrative to dehumanize the process of family reunification. 

 

what do you mean by set them up for failure, how do we do that?

If we are not asking people to provide proof that they have the coverage they need and the fiances the would need to live in the US.

 

How would they know what is required and needed. We shouldn't be relying on the good faith that every immigrant has looked into how the US works and the average cost of living for retirement age. The requirements should be setting people up for what would be expected to live a reasonable life in the US. Currently we are asking if you live just a small fraction about poverty (living above 25% above poverty doesn't set someone immigrating here in retirement for american dream). 

 

Example: Setting someone up for success is a common technique we I use in my line of work. The people I work with are very sick and had major life changing events. I am not going to be sending them home knowing I am setting them up to fail.  We continuously modify our techniques and systems so we can set up someone home to a successful outcome (ie with the equipment and resources).  I am the expert so I should best recommend what is need to happen in order to do this. In the world of parental retirement age immigration we should be setting up a system that is similar. This is what you would need in order to be successful in the US so here is what we are requiring you to have. Current system is good faith that foreigners researched/understand the depths of the US healthcare = not a good system.

 

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

5 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Of course, as defined by the MDL, everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is racist. 

oh, let me clarify, i didn't say everything that comes out of trump's mouth is racist. but when he gets to talking boy, he sure does let his true colors fly. he can't help himself. he's an old man, set in his ways.

[Dashinka 23,348]

4 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Here's the thing....

 

The average person has no idea what it takes to legally immigrate. Everywhere we go people ask us how my husband got here. They are ever so happy and sometimes patronizing to hear he came here ''the right way'', but they have no idea how he actually got here and what you have to do or how much it costs or requires. In fact they usually launch into some way they think immigration works, eg - you just get off a plane, move in, and somehow announce yourself to the government akin to going into the DMV or something... and invariably they believe it's all done within the space of a few hours. There's others that simply think you are immediately legal upon marriage with no other evidence to provide. They become bewildered when I explain about green cards (2yr and 10yr) and EADs, the restrictions and requirements, and the wait times. Almost all of them think that you can work legally as soon as you set foot in the country (as our CPA thought the other day bless his heart!).

 

So when they hear the term chain migration... they suddenly see conjured into their heads a massive throng of people at the gates al at once. Swarms of parents, siblings, children, cousins, aunts, uncles, 3rd cousin removed you get the drift... something out of Walking Dead, and it's simply not true. It doesn't work that way. But such hyperbole is counted on to get that image into the public lexicon. POTUS implies via his 'speaking' that one person can bring in 50 or 100 people... and it is not true. Notice that media doesn't try and counter it or even talk about it or discuss the contents in bills that are over 400 pages long. Politicians aren't going to talk about the heart of bills like this, it's too easy to sell something when it's glossed over. There are a few conservative/libertarian organizations that have been good about diving into the meat of bills like RAISE and SAFA, and what they discover is very very bad.

 

Who is going to tell USCs they are actually currently here due to the result of chain migration? Who is going to tone down the hyperbole and think a while?

Interesting, I don't recall ever having anyone ask us about Katya's immigration process other than my immediate family.