fascinating123

7 hours ago, nativeson said:

 

Cue Corporate America whining that they can't find workers when 22 million Americans are unemployed. The H1B and OPT programs should be canceled outright.

Yes, I'm sure the laid off restaurant and retail workers could easily transition into agriculture or IT. 

The H1B and OPT programs should be cancelled, because you shouldn't need a government permission slip to hire a foreigner or for a foreigner to accept employment. 

13 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

If you don't mind me asking, what did you do for your marriage?

 

I thought being engaged to a Seventh Day Adventist (being, then, an atheist.. agnostic now) long ago was a tough thing to overcome because of SDA's non-compromising views.

We had a civil ceremony. There are clergymen (though not very common) of both faiths who would officiate, but having a traditional ceremony wasn't important to either of us. Both of my wife's parents (as well as her siblings) are quite open minded so thankfully her family didn't have any problems with us getting married. One of the perks is we both get double the holidays now (Eid and Christmas haha). 

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

well you are constant to my friend. I think I mistook you for a militant islamist, but I think you may be a strict constitutionalist

   

I'm a Christian. My wife is Muslim. She's the one from Yemen. She certainly not in any way an Islamist. Militant or otherwise. 

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_president_of_the_United_States

 

Article II of the Constitution expressly designates the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"[1] – since 1947, this has been understood to mean all U.S. Armed Forces. As commander-in-chief, the president exercises supreme operational command over the military; which includes the power to launch, direct and supervise military operations, order or authorize the deployment of troops (in foreign countries), and form military policy with the Department of Defense and Homeland Security. However, the constitutional ability to declare war is vested only in Congress.[2]

Ah yes, since 1947 when the US began to take the reigns from the British empire as the world's preeminent colonial empire. Constitution and limited government be damned. 

1 minute ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

so you are against any form of gun control ?

Yes. Very much so. 

6 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Well there are US Troops in Canada and I do not think the US has declared war on Canada since 1812.

And I'd question the legality of that as well. 

1 minute ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

You will learn I am very consistent in my beliefs no matter the politics. My co posters call me the middle of the road guy

 

agree. For someone who got the Nobel peace prize, he sure caused a lot of deaths around the world. 

 

P.s.  as commander in Chief the President has a pretty large margin to deploy the military in Operations around the world. 

much to my dismay 

Presidents have claimed such power, but it such claims are out of sync with the text of the Constitution and the founders own feelings on even having a standing army (which were frequently used to terrorize civilians in 18th century Europe). If the Constitution is to mean anything, then the limits placed on the government in its text need to be enforced. 

25 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

If that person had caused the death and torture of 10's of 100s and the american court had ordered him brought in dead or alive, then we are cool. I am sure the Govt of the country it was done in knew we were there . 

At least you're consistent. Kudos for that. 

On the flip side though, the Constitution does not give the president permission to order troops into a country we are not at war with. It shouldn't be too much to ask that the formal process be followed and if not, require that the elected official in question be removed from office since he obviously doesn't understand his legal authority, or refuses to abide by it. 

In case anyone is wondering, I said the same thing about Obama. It was a little more egregious in his case since he was a Constitutional scholar prior to holding elected office and thus should have known better. 

11 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Clearly Congress cares less and less about the Constitution. The abuse we're seeing happening via FISA courts, which should've never spawned to begin with, demonstrates precisely why we have certain protections and government limitations -- we have to have a government that makes informed choices that can be checked rather than secretive/knee-jerk ones beyond public scrutiny. We seem to forget this every time a bad situation happens, ceding more authority to the government, which winds up making its way mostly to the executive, and mostly the new-fangled fourth branch which is the investigative/intelligence bureaus (USIC) that now believe (through their actions) they are the ones that craft foreign policy and decide who wins the Presidency. 

Yup. And then the response to this is always turned around as if we're "defending" the terrorists. Yeah, Anwar Awlaki was a bad guy and no one cries for him (nor should they). The inertia is what I'm worried about, and it's what many of the anti-war folks are worried about. Power corrupts, and any power taken today in the name of fighting evil will one day be used for nefarious purposes. It's how these things work. 

14 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Actually yes. If the Yemeni govt had taken him out I would have been just as giddy

No. I mean if the Yemeni government decided to take out someone convicted in America by an American court who was living in the US. 

3 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I always feel troubled about what happened to Adolf, no trial no conviction, nothing.

 

(PS Congress has the power to declare war, deploy troops, how would or could that ever work?)

Congress has the power to declare war, yes. The president doesn't have the Constitutional authority to just wage war without said declaration however. What we've had for several years now (this is not a problem that started with Trump at all) is unchecked presidential war-making. Deploying troops, flying drones hither and yon, domestic spying, etc. These are all unconstitutional, unless of course we've come to a point where the constitution can be twisted to remove all real meaning from its words. 

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Actually he was found guilty by a Yemeni court 

And yet taken out by an American drone. I suppose if a Yemeni drone executed an American criminal you'd be ok with that. 

The excuse for empire is unbelievable. 

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Her father was a top Al Qaeda terrorist  Anwar al-Awlaki. Typical  kind of radical murder. Busted for prostitution . Mentored 3 of the 9-11 hijackers, described by Saudi officials  as the Bin Laden of the internet, you get the picture  A real scum coward piece of trash. Wanted dead or alive by the Yemeni govt and placed on a CIA kill list by Obama. His own Muslim govts ordered him killed.

 

  While the death of this angelic looking innocent 8 year old is tragic, and I am no way minimizing the tragedy,  her death lies squarely on the shoulders of her father and other Al Qaeda leaders  who are well known for hiding women and children in Al Qaeda terrorist compounds. Sacrifice for the PR. Hezbollah does it all the time. The fire rockets from schools and hospitals, so that when the counter artillery comes, and it will, they can blame Israel for killing innocents. 

 

I would also note that an American hero, tier one operator lost his life in that raid, during which women were carrying weapons and firing on the seal team. 

 

In closing I also mourn the loss of many many 10's of  1000's of innocent women and children, that have been brutally tortured and executed around the globe by ISIS and other radical extremist Islamic groups. I just hope one day the many millions of decent god fearing Muslims around the globe, can help stamp out the cancer in its ranks

I'm sure her father was not a good person, however he was never tried, nor indicted for any crimes. He was simply labeled a terrorist and a murder bot was sent to kill him. Maybe you find comfort in that, I find that terrifying. 

Further, there is no provision in the Constitution allowing the president to deploy troops to another country without a declaration of war from Congress. Roosevelt couldn't even take out Hitler without having Congress' blessing. There has not been a declaration of war on Yemen. There hasn't been a declaration of war on Pakistan, or any number of other countries where American troops are deployed or where our drone bombers have flown. If it's so important or if these enemies are such an existential threat to the existence of the United States (which I find doubtful considering they have no air force nor navy) then it's important enough to declare war. 

We're going to wake up one day (maybe in 10 years, maybe in 50) and someone truly evil will be president. And he or she will have at their disposal an entire imperial apparatus that they can use in whatever way they wish. There's a reason the founders put limits on the power of government and the power of the president specifically. To so casually dismiss these limits because you have a momentary feeling of fear of someone thousands of miles away is dangerous. I truly hope I don't get a chance to tell you I told you so. 

The fact is Trump, like his predecessors, has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. The commander in chief has continued to wage wars across the globe, wars that were never authorized by a congressional declaration of war. The raid he authorized in Yemen in January 2017 resulted in the murder of an 8 year old American girl, Nawar al-Awlaki by a member of US armed forces. Trump has never denied that he ordered those troops into Yemen and there has never been a congressional declaration of war on Yemen. That raid was unconstitutional, and as such Trump should be impeached and removed from office. And yes, this means that Bush and Obama should have had the same fate, the fact that they didn't is unfortunate, but not an excuse for continued abuse of presidential power to wage war. 

I don't care about phone calls to Ukraine or threats to withhold money from Ukraine because I don't think the US government should be dispersing money to other countries. I care about limited government and opposing empire. You won't see anyone from "the resistance" mentioning the above reasoning for impeaching Trump because they want the same war making power when their person is in office. The whole thing is a sick joke, meanwhile people are dying and resources are being thrown away for destructive purposes. It's disgusting and it's long been the end of the republic. 

12 hours ago, MjC772 said:

Awesome. I'm a US citizen by the way, by birth. Your guide is just perfect: let's dictate all laws based on generosity and compassion. Fantastic idea. I live in Peru, they have been trying this here with Venezuelans....not working out so well. Peruvians are all ticked off,  Venezuelans are taking their jobs and everyday there are news footage of robberies, assaults, and even murders committed by Venezuelans..... sadly, it has now become a huge problem. From the start, I told my wife that it would be impossible to get that genie back in the bottle and unfortunately, I was correct. 

 

Yes, you are right, there has always been a public charge rule....it was rarely, if ever, enforced. Now that the rule is potentially being enforced....the left doesn't like it. YOU access common sense....but you can't have common sense, generosity and compassion all in the same legal rulings.  And please, you can maybe accuse me of not being generous or even having compassion, but don't ever accuse me of not having common sense.

Personally, I'd like to see all government welfare services ended immediately (for citizens and non-citizens). The free market can take care of it far better than any state program can. 

My concern with the public charge rule is that people may be denied immigration benefits even if they have no intention of ever using welfare programs and in fact would never do so. I'm not big on the principle of prior restraint and there are better ways to deal with the problem of immigrants using welfare benefits than denying petitions because you feel like you can see into their future. 

My wife had her naturalization ceremony this morning. Good luck to everyone else who is still waiting. 

Checked online today, oath ceremony is scheduled for 9/25/19. The end is in sight.

13 minutes ago, Scandi said:

I was wondering about that. I don't know much about credit scores and nothing about how they work, but I do have a high score myself and have never been in debt or taken a loan in my entire life. 🤷 Apparently credit scores are insanely important in this country, good to have a good one, in other words. 

A good credit score merely means you have a lengthy history of responsibly using credit when it has been extended to you and not applying for credit needlessly.

There are some personal finance gurus (I guess that's what one can call them) like Dave Ramsey who are credit-phobic. As if having a credit card or home equity line of credit, etc. is going to instantly make you run up your credit lines and put you into thousands of dollars in debt. In point of fact, if you don't spend money you don't have, you can actually make a couple hundred dollars a year in rewards by just using your credit card instead of cash or debit (paying the balance off prior to the statement due date to avoid paying interest of course). Plenty of people can't use credit responsibly and those people should avoid credit. But the idea that all credit is bad and should be avoided like the plague is nutty.

41 minutes ago, letvapiana said:

I don't know how this is bad. 
Only thing i see is bad is this counterfeit racist media that is bashing Trump where there is no reason to. 
I taught it effects me(even tho i have green card waiting for i751), because i even found articles where they are gonna start taking our green cards at airport(fake news). This freaked me out for no reason, and i skipped my trip, to visit my sick father because of fake news. Like they seriously can mess up someones life just because they are demonizing Trump.
Like who the hell wants people that are abusing system, have you guys seen those poor cities in California, where people pay everything with EBT cards, dont pay taxes until they make 10 kids so they can get money back, get insurance, housing for free without even being legal. I mean even Americans shouldn't do that for granted(just my opinion) but as temporary help, meanwhile they see is at way permanent thing, and also all of those child support things, while at the same time being racist and blaming people, by saying that"they hate their race", where its not race thing, its just awful selection of immigrants representing all of us in a bad light, which are trying to do good. Because of them even i my self, when i think about word immigrant, first thing that comes to my mind is uneducated person with low IQ, selfish, and racist. Yeah that is awful. Racism that boils in that is awful, because media is feeding them  by telling them they are at that position because of their race. 
From what i understand this affects only people that don't have green cards, and even if u were abusing gov money, like it doesnt matter if u dont do it after oct 15. Even if u do it after oct 15, u can get papers possibly after 36 months. What do people want more, and how is this a bad thing? Racist people that take young engineers, doctors and similar professions(even from their own country) spot by living here like leeches is what is really racist and unfair.
I see someone asking does it affect people filling i751. No it doesn't. I took fee waivers at college(i didnt get free money) i was scared that'll affect me. I always taught going to college is a good thing for uscis(which it probably  is). I talked to lawyer and he clarified it that it doesnt effect us, even tho we are conditional residents, we are still permanent residents, and if u got your first GC, you are not affected by this! Sorry for mistypes, i kinda wrote long post on the go.

Well, I think the problem (and i don't necessarily think it started with Trump) is the amount of discretion immigration officers have when ascertaining whether they believe someone is or will be a public charge. Sure, someone who has used public benefits might be easy to spot, but what of someone sponsoring their parents (or one of them)? That person might have a hard time proving their parent(s) won't be a public charge other than not using welfare (which is a fairly low bar to clear, IMO) not because they're a lazy leach, but because it's hard to prove a negative. 

I think it's too early to say for certain how this rule will be implemented. But what I've learned about government is that it's always good to be suspicious of it. It's no wonder people are worried. 

11 hours ago, Nitas_man said:

No health insurance will add a parent, brother, sister, or any other non-spouse or child relative to a plan.

WTH?

They are responsible for their own insurance, or their sponsor can buy a separate policy 😂 at ruinous expense

Yes, this is correct as far as I understand. As far getting her a private plan of her own, we have looked into getting something very basic covering LTC or chronic illness (maybe as a rider to life insurance policy) but due to the non-LPR status and Yemeni citizenship it's been hard. At least with the companies I'm appointed with.

15 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

That sounds discriminatory to me. National origin has no bearing on obtaining health insurance so long as the person is legally present. I've seen people get their elderly parents as a dependent on their taxes, but that really doesn't much have anything to do with heath coverage. You may not be able to add her to the wife's plan, but would you be willing to just buy her own private plan? You could also try signing her for Obamacare, it will be a lot more convoluted but her status would certainly allow for this. Keep in mind, as I said earlier, the ACA is not a means tested benefit, but we're still not clarified how it will be interpreted in the new policy. It merely says greater positive weight would be applied to private plans.

I could very sadly see that happening. To be fair the K1 form is the I-134, and some consulates allow you to get by with 100% FPL rather than 125%. Some, like London allow for self-sponsorship if the beneficiary has got a big chunk of savings. Since it's a non-immigrant visa with dual intent, the person has the option to stay or go afterwards, so the support is really just supposed to be for the 90 day period.

Part of it might be the rules my brokerage firm has in place regarding OFAC and Patriot Act compliance. They wouldn't even open an investment account for my wife's aunt because she (the aunt) wasn't a US citizen. 

4 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Well. Do you have health insurance for the mom? And you have a big household income, no public benefits, and such. Sounds like you'd be okay.

No. My wife has been unable to add her onto her plan (which is the plan I'm on as well) since she's not legally a dependent (which she can only be if she's a resident, or so TurboTax tells me). I broker for life and health insurance and none of the companies I'm assigned with will insure anyone who is a national of Yemen who is also not a US citizen. I suppose hypothetically one exists I just haven't found one.

1 minute ago, geowrian said:

If the AOS is filed based on being an IR of a USC, then yes it will apply.

If it is filed based on being granted asylum and living in the US for 1+ year, then no.

Yes, it's not a question to me whether or not the new rule applies, but rather whether the new rule would result in the application being denied. I wasn't necessarily looking for a concrete answer (since I don't believe any of us know how the rule will be enforced at the moment), more wondering out loud.

2 minutes ago, missileman said:

Public charge does not apply to those applying for asylum.......https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-17142.pdf  search for "asylee"

Right, but when my wife gets her citizenship in a few months, the plan is to apply for LPR status for my mother-in-law (thus no longer making her an asylee).

I'm curious as to whether this will impact my wife's ability to sponsor her mother (who currently lives with us as she waits for her asylum case). My mother-in-law hasn't worked since college and is in her late 50s. Our household income is over $100k and no one in our household has used any kind of state welfare programs ever. My wife is waiting to attend her oath ceremony which according to the website is set for sometime in October. It would certainly suck if they determined she was a risk for being a public charge and wouldn't let her have LPR status.

As for the policy as a whole, I'm personally against all of the welfare programs and wish none of them existed. So I'm not morally opposed to preventing immigrants from using them, I just wish citizens were prevented from using them as well.