SparklePony

For those who talk about how easy it is to immigrate to the US, it can be or not, depending on where you're from and whether or not you qualify. Citizens of some countries can't apply for diversity visas, and if they don't have family or a special skill that can get them a work visa, there aren't many options left. And while for European countries the K1s are fairly easy peasy, for others it's not easy at all. I think a lot of visas are handed out because a lot of people apply, but does anyone have statistics on how many are also denied?
 
And while some 1st World countries are very hard to immigrate to (Netherlands and Denmark have been mentioned), others may not be. I'm not familiar with the rules for all of them, but I know for Portugal it is very easy. Not easy at all to gain citizenship, but you don't need that to legally work and live there - that's why so many UKers retire there. The only reason my husband didn't move there was because he was a lot more stable, financially, than I was, and it was going to be a lot easier for me to move here in terms of culture (I had lived here as a child for 3 years). I would love to have my parents move here one day - my dad has lived and worked in the US (legally) several times, and absolutely loves it here. And his line of work is much more advanced here than back home. At his age, I highly doubt he could get a work visa, though.

Tougher standards than what there are now will always be subjective - when people say "Oh, what would make sense is to do X or Y or Z", they're looking at it from their very own perspective which may not make sense at all to someone else. As an example, skilled workers - why not increase skilled labor *within* the American work force?
 
Same as saying older rules were better because that's when the country had the best economy... well, immigrant policies are for sure not the only factor behind economic booms. IMO, the real issue underneath it all is not immigration policies but work/business policies. Illegal immigrants wouldn't flock here if they weren't able to find jobs and make a better living than what they had back home. That's where the battle needs to happen - the immigration aspect of it is just a symptom. Same with giving Americans a leg up in the workforce - it's with those hiring that changes need to happen, not in regards to who enters. And the same with benefits - if they are being given out illegally, that's the fault in the system, not with the immigrants. The system needs to be fixed, otherwise - again - you're just treating the symptom (I confess to some bewilderment here, as I have no idea how immigrants are getting access to benefits they can't have access to, Unless fraud is being committed?).
 
Just seems to me that so many times the immigrant is the perfect scapegoat, and the real problems aren't being addressed.

For those who talk about how easy it is to immigrate to the US, it can be or not, depending on where you're from and whether or not you qualify. Citizens of some countries can't apply for diversity visas, and if they don't have family or a special skill that can get them a work visa, there aren't many options left. And while for European countries the K1s are fairly easy peasy, for others it's not easy at all. I think a lot of visas are handed out because a lot of people apply, but does anyone have statistics on how many are also denied?
 
And while some 1st World countries are very hard to immigrate to (Netherlands and Denmark have been mentioned), others may not be. I'm not familiar with the rules for all of them, but I know for Portugal it is very easy. Not easy at all to gain citizenship, but you don't need that to legally work and live there - that's why so many UKers retire there. The only reason my husband didn't move there was because he was a lot more stable, financially, than I was, and it was going to be a lot easier for me to move here in terms of culture (I had lived here as a child for 3 years). I would love to have my parents move here one day - my dad has lived and worked in the US (legally) several times, and absolutely loves it here. And his line of work is much more advanced here than back home. At his age, I highly doubt he could get a work visa, though.

If only the current administration would realize that what Bannon whispers should not become policy.
Immigrants create jobs period. We have no issues being over run by legal immigrants. None.
What we do have a problem with is an education system that does not catapult high school kids and college kids
into top notch innovation. The big techno giants understand this and look outside of the US for top notch innovators.
High school kids have become lazy and entitled. Many don't want to further their education. Many do and can't afford it.
I worry about this education system that keeps falling behind other countries much more than legal immigrants.
Typical example from the Midwest I am currently experiencing:
At the plant where my husband works he was promoted to lead in his department after one year, while the company is bypassing
all those who have been there for 20, 30 + years. Yet, he as a fresh immigrant gets promoted. Why ? They can't find anyone
to hire who passes the drug tests or who wants to work hard. My hubby works circles around them and the managers
are blown away stating they have never seen anyone fill orders as fast as he does.
So there is another side to this "we want jobs" outcry ......many want jobs but are too lazy to better themselves or
work hard or want their drug and smoke it too. 
The High School education here has become a joke. It can only get worse, the current president doesn't
read books he says, yeah go ye forth and un inspire and introduce vouchers.
Education or rather the lack of it is the weak link, not immigrants.


 

Unconditional 10 year green cards if you've been married for at least two years on the day of approval; conditional green cards if you've been married for fewer than two years on the day of approval. 

Dissent, criticism and inciting hate are three different things.
Scrutinizing a religion, or some points of the religion is not hate speech. Asking people to hate people of a particular religion is hate speech.
 
Its like comparing apples to oranges. 
 
 
For example, is it "hate" if an art student draws Mohammed for an art project? No one terms this hate except extremists. Who then incite violence based on it. 
Is it "hate" if a professor objects to the idea of cultural appropriation? This is dissent or disagreement, not hate. 
Is it "hate" if a speaker argues against Black Lives Matter? Again dissent or disagreement, not hate. If the propagate and influence their students to hate on BLM or blacks purely on the basis of their race, that is hate.
Is it "hate" if a professor objects to the notion of a gender wage gap? Again dissent or disagreement, not hate. If they can explain why they object in a rational manner, without resorting to saying 'but WIMEN' then i would still say it is slightly sexist, but still not hate speech.
 
If I, as a liberal, can understand the difference between dissent, criticism and actual hate speech, why do so wrongly believe that other liberals cannot? Or if conservatives cannot?
 
Why are you so hellbent on proving that all liberals or the left HATE anyone who disagrees with what we believe in? Hate is a very strong word.

I'm sorry this particular judge is not "legislating from the bench" and an "activist" judge in this scenario. He granted a temporary restraining order so the case can be discussed/reviewed because he believes the states' case against the ban has merit. There is no decision on overturning the ban or the constitutionality of it yet, just merely that it is on hold until the case can be taken to court. The criteria to be put on hold has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the ban itself, it is just that 1. The states MAY have a case and 2. Continuing the ban until the case is heard would cause "irreparable harm". He decided that they met those two requirements, so instituted the TRO. You can argue with that, but that is his right as a federal judge. That isn't legislation, that is his judiciary responsibility. 
 
More broadly (not about this case specifically) - The argument that the "left leaning" judges are the only ones that "reinterpret" the constitution is just hogwash. The right have been trying to "interpret" the 1st amendment so that it allows people to discriminate. That is absolutely an "interpretation" and not a literal reading of the 1st amendment. The problem is the constitution is actually not a very long document, and it is quite vague. We have to interpet it. A literal reading of it would leave too many unanswered questions.
 
This ignores the other valid argument that a document written 200+ years ago and before the industrial revolution is something that should only be read literally and never be changed or updated. We have to move with the times or our country will be just a blip in the history of humanity. 

If only someone could have foreseen this. If only there was some way to predict Trumps lack of respect for the courts based on his lack of respect for everything.  

Correct and correct

The President has strong business ties in Turkey - I think you might be safe.

The President has strong business ties in Turkey - I think you might be safe.

Wouldn't the arrest in his youth show up on the police report? Or maybe not all visas require one?

Wouldn't the arrest in his youth show up on the police report? Or maybe not all visas require one?

From form I-864:
"If an intending immigrant becomes a lawful permanent resident in the United States based on a Form I-864 that you have signed, then, until your obligations under Form I-864 terminate, the U.S. Government may consider (deem) your income and assets as available to that person, in determining whether he or she is eligible for certain Federal means-tested public benefits and also for state or local means-tested public benefits, if the state or local government's rules provide for consideration (deeming) of your income and assets as available to the person.
This provision does not apply to public benefits specified in section 403© of the Welfare Reform Act such as emergency Medicaid, short-term, non-cash emergency relief; services provided under the National School Lunch and Child Nutrition Acts; immunizations and testing and treatment for communicable diseases; and means-tested programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act."
It's fine to apply for & receive this as it's one of the exceptions along with Emergency Medicaid and some other programs/services.

This seems to say you can apply:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fr-070798
I know in our area (we are also currently on reduce price lunches), they don't even ask for SSN/ citizenship status on the form.

Not a public charge >
Nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)- commonly referred to as Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs
https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/public-charge-fact-sheet

I doubt it.
http://texaslawhelp.org/files/685E99A9-A3EB-6584-CA74-137E0474AE2C/attachments/BC4FFBC1-0BD2-4B02-B3AF-27CDA1B59D32/overview-of-immigrant-eligibility-for-federal-programs.pdf
Affidavit of Support
The 1996 laws enacted rules that make it more difficult to immigrate to the U.S. to reunite with family members. Effective December 19, 1997, relatives (and some employers) have been required to meet strict income requirements and to sign a long-term contract, or affidavit of support (USCIS Form I-864), promising to maintain the immigrant at 125 percent of the federal poverty level and to repay any means-tested public benefits the immigrant may receive. The specific federal benefits for which sponsors may be liable have been defined to be TANF, SSI, food stamps, nonemergency Medicaid, and SCHIP. Federal agencies have issued little guidance on these provisions, however. Regulations on the affidavits of support issued in 2006 make clear that states are not obligated to pursue sponsors and that states cannot collect reimbursement for services used prior to public notification that they are considered means-tested public benefits for which sponsors will be liable.

Most states have not designated the programs that would give rise to sponsor liability, and NILC is aware of only one state that has attempted to pursue reimbursement. However, the specter of sponsor liability has deterred some eligible immigrants from applying for benefits, based on concerns about ex-posing their sponsors to government collection efforts.

They are finally home! They went through POE on the 14th and it was a breeze.

And for the final update - they entered on July 14th with their visas. POE was a breeze, according to my oldest (they flew alone, like before), and in no time they were reunited with my husband who brought them home.
It's been a long long journey to get them here, but it is finally over.
Now on to AOS!

And for the final update - they entered on July 14th with their visas. POE was a breeze, according to my oldest (they flew alone, like before), and in no time they were reunited with my husband who brought them home.
It's been a long long journey to get them here, but it is finally over.
Now on to AOS!

They are finally home! They went through POE on the 14th and it was a breeze.

They are finally home! They went through POE on the 14th and it was a breeze.

And for the final update - they entered on July 14th with their visas. POE was a breeze, according to my oldest (they flew alone, like before), and in no time they were reunited with my husband who brought them home.
It's been a long long journey to get them here, but it is finally over.
Now on to AOS!

They are finally home! They went through POE on the 14th and it was a breeze.

They are finally home! They went through POE on the 14th and it was a breeze.