This will jerk a knot in the Democrats butts.

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
President Trump is signed a memorandum Thursday that will enforce a 23-year-old provision requiring sponsors of legal immigrants in the U.S. to reimburse the government for any social services such as Medicaid or welfare used by the immigrant, Fox News has learned.
Should that say "illegal"?
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
Should that say "illegal"?
Actually no...Trump is attacking legal immigrants now...well sort of.

Hijinx, being the complete dumbass he is, doesn't bother to look up the current process:

The Form I-864, Affidavit of Support is signed in virtually all family-based immigration cases. If you became a lawful permanent resident (LPR) through a spouse, parent or child, chances are the Form I-864 was signed.

By signing the Form I-864, the sponsor promises to ensure you have income at or about 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines - roughly $1,226 for a household of one. If your monthly income is below that amount, the sponsor is required to make up the difference. So - for example - if you earned $1,000 for a given, month, the sponsor would owe you $226.

Then there is this: https://www.uscis.gov/i-864

It took less than a couple minutes to find the items in question. What Trump just did that has Hijinx's panties so wet appears to be nothing more than a restatement of existing policies and procedures.

Naturally, Trump has no actual policies of his own or new procedures or legislation....so he makes a show for the 35%....you know...dumbasses like Hijinx.
 

Monello

Awww, jeez
PREMO Member
I have sponsored a family member from overseas. Part of the documentation the sponsor signs it that the sponsoree won't become a public charge. The sponsor is financially responsible. You have to show bank statements to prove your ability to provide for them prior to them being approved. This sort of makes sense.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
I have sponsored a family member from overseas. Part of the documentation the sponsor signs it that the sponsoree won't become a public charge. The sponsor is financially responsible. You have to show bank statements to prove your ability to provide for them prior to them being approved. This sort of makes sense.
and that's not a new provision. When people came through Ellis Island, they had to prove they would not be a burden on society
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
and that's not a new provision. When people came through Ellis Island, they had to prove they would not be a burden on society
Some countries, for instance, Australia, you aren't allowed to retire there, even if you have the wherewithal to do so. To even emigrate, you have to have a sponsor (typically a company).
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Burdens on society become reliable Democrat voters!
Listening to the horde of Democrats who would be president trying to out do each other, these are the promises;
  • The state will provide you you a job (they will tell you what the job is).
  • The state will dictate your salary, everyone will be paid the same (very little) (except for the politically connected)
  • The state will provide health care.
  • The state will provide education (they will choose for you, it may not be to the level or type you might desire)
  • The state will provide housing (probably built by that highly motivated workforce they are providing)
  • The state will tell you what you are allowed to say and when.
Reading that list, what form of government / economic system are we talking about?
 

gemma_rae

Well-Known Member
Listening to the horde of Democrats who would be president trying to out do each other, these are the promises;
  • The state will provide you you a job (they will tell you what the job is).
  • The state will dictate your salary, everyone will be paid the same (very little) (except for the politically connected)
  • The state will provide health care.
  • The state will provide education (they will choose for you, it may not be to the level or type you might desire)
  • The state will provide housing (probably built by that highly motivated workforce they are providing)
  • The state will tell you what you are allowed to say and when.
Reading that list, what form of government / economic system are we talking about?
Fascist Socialism.

If it were communism the state would provide you with goods, not a salary. And since the democrats envision a single person tyrannical ruler it is not socialism, but fascist socialism.

Contradicting this is contradicting the writings of Benito Mussolini himself.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Fascist Socialism.

If it were communism the state would provide you with goods, not a salary. And since the democrats envision a single person tyrannical ruler it is not socialism, but fascist socialism.

Contradicting this is contradicting the writings of Benito Mussolini himself.
The Democratic party seeks to put together a coalition that will ensure it of one party rule, much like Maryland, DC, NY, Chicago, San Francisco, et al.
Not one person, one party, in control of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The difference between a liberal justice and a conservative is liberal justices seek to reinvent the constitution with modern language and adept it to "the time". Where as originalists or conservative tend to focus on the founders's meaning and the intent. Liberals tend to give a broader meaning to certain clauses that conservatives because they feel it over steps the federal governments power to regulate the states (states' rights).
So by controlling both branches of the elected government, they will eventually control the third. They already control the unofficial 4th branch, the press.
If you think I am being overly dramatic, take "hate crime" legislation. Why it's not been challenged, I don't know. But in essence the legislative branch has decided certain circumstances call for an additional crime / penalty. The enforcement of that crime is determined more by the some identity rather than the act. Murder is murder, assault is assault, enforce the those laws, don't tell law enforcement (State's Attorneys) they can add an additional charge based on the race / gender or sexual orientation or identity of the victim.
We already have the 4th estate regulating what can be said because it's seen as "hate speech". Codify it, then the government can get in on the act (for political purposes) and silence critics who they say use hate speech.
 
Top