Cuccinelli on Immigrants: Self-Sufficient Europeans Only

[lpetrich]

Ken Cuccinelli: Statue Of Liberty Poem About ‘People Coming From Europe’ | HuffPost

CNN journalist Erin Burnett was asking Cuccinelli about his earlier interview with NPR, in which he reworded the Emma Lazarus poem “The New Colossus,” saying: “Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet, and who will not become a public charge.”

“‘Wretched,’ ‘poor,’ refuse’ - right? That’s what the poem says America is supposed to stand for. So what do you think America stands for?” Burnett asked Cuccinelli.

“Well, of course, that poem was referring back to people coming from Europe,” Cuccinelli answered, “where they had class-based societies, where people were considered wretched if they weren’t in the right class ... And it was written one year after the first federal public charge rule was written.”

What sort of bullshit is that?

Emma Lazarus's poem:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

It was written in 1883, and the Statue of Liberty was built in 1886.

 

[Gun Nut]

Am I wrong in my impression that "the whole world" at the turn of the century was Europe, Asia, and the "new world"? And at this point in history, Asians weren't migrating anywhere outside of Asia. This leaves Europe as "the rest of the world", as compared with the "new world". Right? more or less?
So while Europeans may have been in mind during the writing of that poem ("Everyone" else), the gist of the message is "everyone welcome", even though "everyone" was in Europe. It's coincidental. not a directed message.
And yes, to the part he said about classes in society where "wretched" was not a derogatory comment, but just the station of life of some people... no more derogatory than saying "born to a poor family". "Give me your wretched" is just saying that this message is not elitist.. all welcome. Today's meaning of "wretched" has changed, of course... so I understand ignorant people's fear. The solution is education and exposure to diversity. Free higher education would help that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reality: For a long time those sponsoring immigrants have had to sign a document saying they would be financially liable if the person needed government aid.

While I don't like what His Flatulence is doing it sounds like he's basically just enforcing what was already on the books. Why should we want immigrants (as opposed to refugees) who can't support themselves?

 

[ZiprHead]

Reality: For a long time those sponsoring immigrants have had to sign a document saying they would be financially liable if the person needed government aid.

While I don't like what His Flatulence is doing it sounds like he's basically just enforcing what was already on the books. Why should we want immigrants (as opposed to refugees) who can't support themselves?

And you would be wrong.

Bonespurs is is not only requiring sponsorship guarantees, He's also requiring income guarantees from the immigrant even if they have a sponsor. And he's raising the income requirement rates on both significantly.

 

[cycomiko]

I'll admit I haven't researched this extensively but I've been wanting to immigrate to Canada for several years. All the forms I've found state that without a job offer (sponsorship), I could still qualify to move there if I have a certain amount of money saved up and have skills in a highly desirable field (engineering). I fully qualify but I've never felt like spending the $5k it would cost for the application.

Is the Trump admin basically saying someone would need to meet BOTH of the above to qualify? i.e. A job offer and all the financial and academic qualifications at the same time.

 

[Gun Nut]

Reality: For a long time those sponsoring immigrants have had to sign a document saying they would be financially liable if the person needed government aid.

While I don't like what His Flatulence is doing it sounds like he's basically just enforcing what was already on the books. Why should we want immigrants (as opposed to refugees) who can't support themselves?

Donald Trump is a good example of what kind of person one can become when born rich.
Oprah Winfrey is a good example of what kind of person one can become when born poor, and becomes rich through their own hard work.

Which are better to have? Personally, I want people that have growth potential... as opposed to people that have nowhere to go but down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reality: For a long time those sponsoring immigrants have had to sign a document saying they would be financially liable if the person needed government aid.

While I don't like what His Flatulence is doing it sounds like he's basically just enforcing what was already on the books. Why should we want immigrants (as opposed to refugees) who can't support themselves?

Donald Trump is a good example of what kind of person one can become when born rich.
Oprah Winfrey is a good example of what kind of person one can become when born poor, and becomes rich through their own hard work.

Which are better to have? Personally, I want people that have growth potential... as opposed to people that have nowhere to go but down.

The threshold for the immigration requirements is 125% of poverty line. I don't feel that's a big burden.

From what ZiprHead says perhaps it's unreasonable now.

 

[ZiprHead]

Reality: For a long time those sponsoring immigrants have had to sign a document saying they would be financially liable if the person needed government aid.

While I don't like what His Flatulence is doing it sounds like he's basically just enforcing what was already on the books. Why should we want immigrants (as opposed to refugees) who can't support themselves?

Donald Trump is a good example of what kind of person one can become when born rich.
Oprah Winfrey is a good example of what kind of person one can become when born poor, and becomes rich through their own hard work.

Which are better to have? Personally, I want people that have growth potential... as opposed to people that have nowhere to go but down.

The threshold for the immigration requirements is 125% of poverty line. I don't feel that's a big burden.

From what ZiprHead says perhaps it's unreasonable now.

From what I remember of the report I heard, it's being raised to 250%.

 

[Deepak]

Am I wrong in my impression that "the whole world" at the turn of the century was Europe, Asia, and the "new world"? And at this point in history, Asians weren't migrating anywhere outside of Asia. This leaves Europe as "the rest of the world", as compared with the "new world". Right? more or less?
So while Europeans may have been in mind during the writing of that poem ("Everyone" else), the gist of the message is "everyone welcome", even though "everyone" was in Europe. It's coincidental. not a directed message.
And yes, to the part he said about classes in society where "wretched" was not a derogatory comment, but just the station of life of some people... no more derogatory than saying "born to a poor family". "Give me your wretched" is just saying that this message is not elitist.. all welcome. Today's meaning of "wretched" has changed, of course... so I understand ignorant people's fear. The solution is education and exposure to diversity. Free higher education would help that.

From the middle English https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/wrecched#Middle_English

So i cracked my copy of Samuel Pepys' diary and found his entry for Oct 27 1665 to use the modern understanding of the word. By memory epistles from both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War had similar takes on the meaning of the word. Perhaps you could provide some sources for we ignorant and unlettered wretches as to when the meaning shifted to not indicate quality, but mere station in life, then somehow shifted back?

And what exactly was the Originalist meaning of refuse at the time?