Trump administration wants immigrants to take a test only one-third of Americans would pass

[phands]

More arrant hypocrisy from the tangerine turd and his gop lackeys....

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is considering a plan that would drastically and unilaterally restrict legal immigration to only the wealthiest and most privileged applicants.
An archaic federal immigration provision called the “public charge” test is currently being drafted by the Trump administration. Immigrants coming to the United States would generally fail this new rewritten test if they had a medical condition and no source of subsidized health insurance.
The test also places a premium on an applicant’s income and assets. Applicants must make at least 250 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, which, in 2018, means $30,350 for a one-person household and $62,750 for a four-person household. By comparison, the average American working full-time typically makes around $51,640 for men and $41,554 for women.
According to a new report from the Center For American Progress, if every American citizen were forced to take the Trump administration’s test, more than 100 million people — roughly one-third of the U.S. population — would fail.

Full Article.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wasn't there always a test that had to be passed that most citizens couldn't?

 

[phands]

Wasn't there always a test that had to be passed that most citizens couldn't?

You mean basic literacy and numeracy?

 

[repoman]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This makes no sense, applicants don't have jobs here in the first place so having an income threshold for them makes no sense. The income requirements are for sponsors, not for the immigrants!

As for the welfare part of it:

As it stands, immigrants aren't eligible for welfare for a period of time (5 years?) and their sponsors are liable for the welfare costs if they do get aid.

Most of the things in the second column are simply extending the definition of welfare benefits and I'm surprised to learn they weren't already covered. I do not think the tax credits and the Pell grants belong on this list.

 

[phands]

This makes no sense, applicants don't have jobs here in the first place so having an income threshold for them makes no sense. The income requirements are for sponsors, not for the immigrants!

As for the welfare part of it:

As it stands, immigrants aren't eligible for welfare for a period of time (5 years?) and their sponsors are liable for the welfare costs if they do get aid.

Most of the things in the second column are simply extending the definition of welfare benefits and I'm surprised to learn they weren't already covered. I do not think the tax credits and the Pell grants belong on this list.

It's 10 years...I know because I'm applying for a green card via marriage right now, and am spending a fortune on lawyers. My wife will be my sponsor. The income thing is where they look at what you earned before you came to the US, translated to dollars, or if already here, like me, what you earn in the US.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This makes no sense, applicants don't have jobs here in the first place so having an income threshold for them makes no sense. The income requirements are for sponsors, not for the immigrants!

As for the welfare part of it:

As it stands, immigrants aren't eligible for welfare for a period of time (5 years?) and their sponsors are liable for the welfare costs if they do get aid.

Most of the things in the second column are simply extending the definition of welfare benefits and I'm surprised to learn they weren't already covered. I do not think the tax credits and the Pell grants belong on this list.

It's 10 years...I know because I'm applying for a green card via marriage right now, and am spending a fortune on lawyers. My wife will be my sponsor. The income thing is where they look at what you earned before you came to the US, translated to dollars, or if already here, like me, what you earn in the US.

Which makes no sense if you're coming from a place with a different economy.

 

[barbos]

Loren Pechtel, at least it will stop H1-B for good, you wanted that, right?

 

[Bomb#20]

More arrant hypocrisy from the tangerine turd and his gop lackeys....

... if every American citizen were forced to take the Trump administration’s test, more than 100 million people — roughly one-third of the U.S. population — would fail. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Full Article.

Stipulating that the tangerine T is a hypocrite, based on any number of his other deeds, why do you perceive this particular policy to be hypocritical? What's inconsistent about a policy that says in effect that everybody in America who can't pass the test should be sent back to wherever he came from?

 

[phands]

More arrant hypocrisy from the tangerine turd and his gop lackeys....

... if every American citizen were forced to take the Trump administration’s test, more than 100 million people — roughly one-third of the U.S. population — would fail. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Full Article.

Stipulating that the tangerine T is a hypocrite, based on any number of his other deeds, why do you perceive this particular policy to be hypocritical? What's inconsistent about a policy that says in effect that everybody in America who can't pass the test should be sent back to wherever he came from?

You really need that spelled out? The fact that the shitgibbon wants to reject immigrants, he says, is to keep the Americans people up to certain standards. Clearly if only 33% of the current population would pass this test, then 66% of the current populace should be undesirable, and thus deported. And he's already looking at denaturalization for those already here. It's clear hypocrisy to hold new people to a much higher standard than your own existing supporters.

 

[Bomb#20]

Stipulating that the tangerine T is a hypocrite, based on any number of his other deeds, why do you perceive this particular policy to be hypocritical? What's inconsistent about a policy that says in effect that everybody in America who can't pass the test should be sent back to wherever he came from?

You really need that spelled out? The fact that the <pejorative> wants to reject immigrants, he says, is to keep the Americans people up to certain standards.

Got a quote to support that? My understanding was that he wanted to keep the American people from being taxed to pay poor relief to foreigners.

Clearly if only 33% of the current population would pass this test,

By the way, your source Ms. Entralgo (or perhaps her editor) has a reading comprehension problem. Their source said that 33% would fail, not that 33% would pass. Your thread title copies ThinkProgress's error.

then 66% of the current populace should be undesirable, and thus deported.

You do understand what deportation is, don't you? It's the process wherein the government sends a person back to whatever country he came from. When we decide to kick out a Canadian for breaking our laws or whatever, it doesn't mean we put him on a bus to Mexico. So do you have any basis for thinking our head ape is not equally prepared to send one of the 33% of native Americans who flunk his test back to America?

And he's already looking at denaturalization for those already here. It's clear hypocrisy to hold new people to a much higher standard than your own existing supporters.

On what planet? That's no different from arguing that since we're letting John the robber go free because the police forgot to read him his rights, it's hypocritical for us not to let Bill the robber go free too, even though the police did read him his rights, because we're holding Bill to a higher standard than John. It's a fallacious inference. The regrettable circumstance that we have no legal solution to the problem of John being on the loose does not qualify as a reason not to solve a problem we can solve legally, the problem of Bill being on the loose.

Likewise, we have no legal solution to the problem of us all being forced to pay to support Joe the American who can't or won't support himself; but that does not qualify as a reason not to solve a problem we can solve legally, the problem of us all being forced to pay to support Paul the Australian who can't or won't support himself. We can solve that one: we can put Paul on a plane for Australia and let the Australian taxpayers support him. Sure, we could put Joe on a plane for America, and push the support burden off onto the Americans, but that wouldn't actually solve our problem and Joe's already in his native country anyway, so we don't. And sure, we could put Joe on a plane for Australia, but (a) that would be illegal, and (b) the Australians would just send him back here. So we don't. If you think that's hypocritical, go tell the government to let Bill the robber go free because they let John off.

 

[laughing dog]

Got a quote to support that? My understanding was that he wanted to keep the American people from being taxed to pay poor relief to foreigners.

If that were the case, then the only relevant test would be some sort of income/work test.

 

[ZiprHead]

Growing number of Russians are coming to the U.S. to give birth

 

[Bomb#20]

Got a quote to support that? My understanding was that he wanted to keep the American people from being taxed to pay poor relief to foreigners.

If that were the case, then the only relevant test would be some sort of income/work test.

Well, the "had a medical condition and no unsubsidized source of health insurance" clause qualifies as some sort of income test -- that's a test for income from a foreigner's insurance company sufficient to pay for his medical condition. And an income/work test isn't the only relevant test -- the test for whether he actually in point of fact obtained poor relief from the government is transparently relevant to whether his presence is costing American taxpayers. Do you have in mind anything specific in the test that you think is unrelated to whether the taxpayers would be subsidizing him?

 

[laughing dog]

Got a quote to support that? My understanding was that he wanted to keep the American people from being taxed to pay poor relief to foreigners.

If that were the case, then the only relevant test would be some sort of income/work test.

Well, the "had a medical condition and no unsubsidized source of health insurance" clause qualifies as some sort of income test -- that's a test for income from a foreigner's insurance company sufficient to pay for his medical condition. And an income/work test isn't the only relevant test -- the test for whether he actually in point of fact obtained poor relief from the government is transparently relevant to whether his presence is costing American taxpayers. Do you have in mind anything specific in the test that you think is unrelated to whether the taxpayers would be subsidizing him?

Why would the government need a test to find out whether a person is receiving "poor relief" from the government?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren Pechtel, at least it will stop H1-B for good, you wanted that, right?

I don't think all H1-Bs need to go. The system has major abuses but I think they can be fixed without abolishing the whole idea.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, the "had a medical condition and no unsubsidized source of health insurance" clause qualifies as some sort of income test -- that's a test for income from a foreigner's insurance company sufficient to pay for his medical condition. And an income/work test isn't the only relevant test -- the test for whether he actually in point of fact obtained poor relief from the government is transparently relevant to whether his presence is costing American taxpayers. Do you have in mind anything specific in the test that you think is unrelated to whether the taxpayers would be subsidizing him?

Why would the government need a test to find out whether a person is receiving "poor relief" from the government?

Um, what do you think a government is, a hive mind? The All-Seeing Eye of Sauron? The Borg, perhaps?

 

[laughing dog]

Well, the "had a medical condition and no unsubsidized source of health insurance" clause qualifies as some sort of income test -- that's a test for income from a foreigner's insurance company sufficient to pay for his medical condition. And an income/work test isn't the only relevant test -- the test for whether he actually in point of fact obtained poor relief from the government is transparently relevant to whether his presence is costing American taxpayers. Do you have in mind anything specific in the test that you think is unrelated to whether the taxpayers would be subsidizing him?

Why would the government need a test to find out whether a person is receiving "poor relief" from the government?

Um, what do you think a government is, a hive mind? The All-Seeing Eye of Sauron? The Borg, perhaps?

I think that given the documentation necessary to get "poor relief", that information is readily available. I can almost understand why there might be problems between a state and the federal gov't, but not within the federal gov't.

 

[Bomb#20]

Um, what do you think a government is, a hive mind? The All-Seeing Eye of Sauron? The Borg, perhaps?

I think that given the documentation necessary to get "poor relief", that information is readily available. I can almost understand why there might be problems between a state and the federal gov't, but not within the federal gov't.

My state shorted me $200 on my tax refund. Inspection of their explanation made it clear some probably overworked clerk typed a wrong digit when transcribing my withholding. The pathetic thing is, all the information on my W-2 came out of a computer. There's no reason in this day and age for manual data entry. The state government has to have already known the right number, and they got it wrong anyway. Your faith that the feds are better is touching; but in a bureaucracy, the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing is standard operating procedure.

(And if that weren't enough, I'll bet recent immigrants are the second most at-risk population for identity theft, after dead people.)