PDA

View Full Version : Trump Rule Rejects Migrants Who Cannot Speak English



Teh One Who Knocks
09-26-2018, 01:08 PM
By Neil Munro - Breitbart


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img921/9585/pVKjYx.jpg

Federal officials will likely reject legal migrants’ requests for visas or green cards if they cannot speak English, says a draft regulation from President Donald Trump’s Department of Homeland Security.

“English language proficiency is a skill that also is relevant in determining whether an alien is likely to become a public charge in the future,” says the draft “public charge” regulation. The regulation is intended to help officials exclude migrants who will likely rely on American taxpayers for their health care, welfare, housing, and wages.

The draft regulation says:


People with the lowest English speaking ability tend to have the lowest employment rate, lowest rate of full-time employment, and lowest median earnings. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, people who spoke a language other than English at home were less likely to be employed, and less likely to find full-time work when employed. In a 2005 study, “on average, workers who spoke only English earned $5,600 more than people who spoke another language.”

People who cannot speak English are also more likely to rely on welfare, the draft says:


data indicate that the rate of coverage of non-cash benefits among those who spoke English either well or very well (about 15 to 20 percent) was significantly lower than the rate among those who either spoke English poorly or not at all (about 25 to 30 percent)

The new regulation was posted just after a report showed that an increasing diversity of languages are being imposed on Americans by the government’s mass-immigration policy. Breitbart reported:


Nearly half of residents in America’s top five largest cities speak a foreign language at home, a new study by the Center for Immigration Studies reveals.

Researchers Steven Camarotta and Karen Zeigler analyzed data from the Census Bureau, finding that more than 48 percent of residents in America’s largest cities — New York City, Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Phoenix — speak a foreign language in the home instead of speaking English.

In Los Angeles, California, nearly 60 percent of residents speak a foreign language at home, while 49 percent speak a foreign language at home in New York City and Houston. In Chicago, about 36 percent of residents speak a foreign language at home and in Phoenix, about 38 percent speak a foreign language at home.

The emphasis on English is one of several criteria for officials to consider when foreigners ask to immigrate into the United States. Other factors include job skills, health, and age. For example, older, unskilled and unhealthy immigrants will generate few taxes but may cost taxpayers a fortune in pensions, health care, and subsidized rentals.

Business and Democratic groups oppose the new regulation, in part, because welfare and healthcare spending on legal immigrants also flows to business groups, and because legal immigrants vote for Democrats. On Sept. 25, for example, Democratic activists in New York registered a naturalized, retired Ecuadorean migrant who does not speak English:
1044693537558863873
The agency’s statement says:


DHS is proposing to consider current and past receipt of designated public benefits above certain thresholds as a heavily weighed negative factor. The rule would also make nonimmigrants who receive or are likely to receive designated public benefits above the designated threshold generally ineligible for change of status and extension of stay.

The public benefits proposed to be designated in this rule are federal, state, local, or tribal cash assistance for income maintenance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid (with limited exceptions for Medicaid benefits paid for an “emergency medical condition,” and for certain disability services related to education), Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps), institutionalization for long-term care at government expense, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, and Public Housing.

The phrase “heavily weighed negative factor” implies that most — but not all — poor, sick and unskilled applicants will not be given residency.

The regulation does not count taxpayer aid related to the Affordable Care Act or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and it excludes taxpayers’ rebates under the Earned Income Tax Credit. The rule also allows would-be immigrants to receive a small amount of aid, or roughly $3,765 for a family of four, or a $1,821 for a single person.

Four million young Americans will join the workforce this year, but the federal government will also import 1.1 million legal immigrants, and allow an army of at least 2 million white-collar and blue-collar visa-workers to work U.S. jobs, alongside additional asylum-claiming migrants and at least 8 million illegal migrants.

Overall, the Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via immigration shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor.

That flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees.

The policy also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions. Immigration also pulls investment and wealth away from heartland states because investment flows towards the large immigrant populations living in the coastal states.

Teh One Who Knocks
09-26-2018, 01:09 PM
:okwith:

Goofy
09-26-2018, 01:16 PM
Good, every country should adopt this rule.

Teh One Who Knocks
09-26-2018, 01:20 PM
Good, every country should adopt this rule.

Couldn't agree more mate...anyone and everyone knows the United States speaks English, but more and more people come here and refuse to learn the language. There are times when we're out and about and we'll hear more Spanish being spoken than English. :|

Muddy
09-26-2018, 02:07 PM
:okwith:

Me too.

RBP
09-26-2018, 03:51 PM
Okay, but can we start with no taxpayer funds for illegals, period? If we can stop taxpayer funds for abortion, surely we can stop taxpayer funds for people here illegally.

lost in melb.
09-26-2018, 06:24 PM
What about an elderly family member from another country?

Hikari Kisugi
09-26-2018, 09:41 PM
What about an elderly family member from another country?

Why would we give them a visa?
I don't quite understand how the US does this, I know in the UK you've to pay about 10K to manage such.
Or you did, and the theory was they didn't get NHS cover for that either.

lost in melb.
09-26-2018, 09:55 PM
Why would we give them a visa?
I don't quite understand how the US does this, I know in the UK you've to pay about 10K to manage such.
Or you did, and the theory was they didn't get NHS cover for that either.

We have the pay system here too. I think that's reasonable. Not sure if they get healthcare? Probably

DemonGeminiX
09-26-2018, 10:22 PM
What about an elderly family member from another country?

If they're not a citizen then why should it be the taxpayer's responsibility?

RBP
09-26-2018, 11:35 PM
No humans are illegal. :x

(stupidest fucking argument ever)

Teh One Who Knocks
09-26-2018, 11:44 PM
No humans are illegal. :x

(stupidest fucking argument ever)

:privilege:

lost in melb.
09-27-2018, 01:41 AM
If they're not a citizen then why should it be the taxpayer's responsibility?

Because they are a citizen's family

DemonGeminiX
09-27-2018, 01:44 AM
Because they are a citizen's family

And that doesn't make them the taxpayer's responsibility. It may make them the responsibility of the family member who is a citizen (and that's kind of sketchy too), but it's not the taxpayer's responsibility.

lost in melb.
09-27-2018, 02:29 AM
And that doesn't make them the taxpayer's responsibility. It may make them the responsibility of the family member who is a citizen (and that's kind of sketchy too), but it's not the taxpayer's responsibility.

Well, not directly. But we have this thing where we try and facilitate the humane treatment of citizens as we would want to be helped ourselves. Imagine if it was your mother, would you take such an argument? Are you saying free schooling shouldn't be burden on taxpayers either? It all depends were we draw the line, I guess.

DemonGeminiX
09-27-2018, 05:55 AM
Well, not directly. But we have this thing where we try and facilitate the humane treatment of citizens as we would want to be helped ourselves. Imagine if it was your mother, would you take such an argument? Are you saying free schooling shouldn't be burden on taxpayers either? It all depends were we draw the line, I guess.

That's the difference between the USA and Australia. In the US, the original idea is that the central government should be small and not involved in people's daily lives. Government is inefficient and incapable of solving problems in the best interests of the people. Keep in mind that what's good for one set of people may not be so good for another set of people. Government advocates for a one size fits all solution, but one size never fits all, and one size limits people's choice. We let the free market reign. The free market allows for individual choice. The government should be staying out of people's way, since individual people are far better at helping themselves and each other than the government could ever be.

Yes, I would make that argument with my mother in mind. In fact, she would make that argument too. Government should not be taking care of families. If the families are so inclined and willing, then they should be taking care of themselves. Families in communities, if they are so inclined and willing, should be taking care of one another. If they are not inclined and willing, then that's the choice that they have made for themselves. And that is their right. Government should stay out of the way.

There is nothing free about schooling. Nothing. School is just another business. If the government takes over schooling, then schooling becomes just another money pit. They will inflate prices to get more money out of government costing the taxpayers more than it should cost anyone. It becomes biased to the government. Government will bend education to it's point of view instead of allowing the unfiltered truth to be told, by withholding money if they don't teach what the government wants them to teach. That is the pathway to tyranny. And no, it should not be a burden on tax payers. A single man that works hard and earns his way to what he wants should not be responsible for paying for the education of an unrelated kid three states over, let alone in his own state. It's not his responsibility. If a student is willing to work hard, then that student could put himself through school without any government assistance whatsoever. And it will be an accomplishment that will mean more to him than if it were handed to him on a silver platter, cost-free, from the government.

Godfather
09-27-2018, 06:46 AM
If a student is willing to work hard, then that student could put himself through school without any government assistance whatsoever.


Just to clarify, you're only talking post-secondary education, or all schooling?

I'm getting more conservative in my old age and am sick of the government fucking up things like transit and public auto insurance we run up here, but I haven't seen a compelling argument to make K-12 education go entirely private before. I think giving every child a fair crack at a good base education is as much in the interest of the country as spending on national security and infrastructure, and so even as a guy with no kids I don't mind my taxes funding schools in my province. If you are talking fully privatizing K-12, are there any models of places where that works? How does it work out for poor families, I can't see private schools giving two shits about them?

DemonGeminiX
09-27-2018, 07:52 AM
As far as my experience is concerned, post secondary, since I was a child of public schooling. However, there are already private schools in the US for K-12. It's not like it's a new thing. Contextually speaking, I really can't see how a little kid would work his way through kindergarten. I guess we could make the little fucker shine shoes somewhere...

lost in melb.
09-27-2018, 12:05 PM
That's the difference between the USA and Australia. In the US, the original idea is that the central government should be small and not involved in people's daily lives. Government is inefficient and incapable of solving problems in the best interests of the people. Keep in mind that what's good for one set of people may not be so good for another set of people. Government advocates for a one size fits all solution, but one size never fits all, and one size limits people's choice. We let the free market reign. The free market allows for individual choice. The government should be staying out of people's way, since individual people are far better at helping themselves and each other than the government could ever be.

Yes, I would make that argument with my mother in mind. In fact, she would make that argument too. Government should not be taking care of families. If the families are so inclined and willing, then they should be taking care of themselves. Families in communities, if they are so inclined and willing, should be taking care of one another. If they are not inclined and willing, then that's the choice that they have made for themselves. And that is their right. Government should stay out of the way.

There is nothing free about schooling. Nothing. School is just another business. If the government takes over schooling, then schooling becomes just another money pit. They will inflate prices to get more money out of government costing the taxpayers more than it should cost anyone. It becomes biased to the government. Government will bend education to it's point of view instead of allowing the unfiltered truth to be told, by withholding money if they don't teach what the government wants them to teach. That is the pathway to tyranny. And no, it should not be a burden on tax payers. A single man that works hard and earns his way to what he wants should not be responsible for paying for the education of an unrelated kid three states over, let alone in his own state. It's not his responsibility. If a student is willing to work hard, then that student could put himself through school without any government assistance whatsoever. And it will be an accomplishment that will mean more to him than if it were handed to him on a silver platter, cost-free, from the government.

No offence, but this is ridiculous ideological surrealism. Might as well go back to the days of forts & slavery. The Republican party clearly isn't right wing enough for you :hand:

lost in melb.
09-27-2018, 12:07 PM
As far as my experience is concerned, post secondary, since I was a child of public schooling. However, there are already private schools in the US for K-12. It's not like it's a new thing. Contextually speaking, I really can't see how a little kid would work his way through kindergarten. I guess we could make the little fucker shine shoes somewhere...

:roll:

DemonGeminiX
09-27-2018, 11:39 PM
No offence, but this is ridiculous ideological surrealism. Might as well go back to the days of forts & slavery. The Republican party clearly isn't right wing enough for you :hand:

No it's not. It's what freedom really looks like. I don't want the government controlling everything. I believe that people are better at accomplishing tasks and taking care of one another than government is. And I have history as evidence to support my assertions.


:roll:

You keep rolling your eyes and missing the humor in my post. ;)

Godfather
09-28-2018, 02:58 AM
As far as my experience is concerned, post secondary, since I was a child of public schooling. However, there are already private schools in the US for K-12. It's not like it's a new thing. Contextually speaking, I really can't see how a little kid would work his way through kindergarten. I guess we could make the little fucker shine shoes somewhere...

:lol: "Get a paper route Tommy, you lazy fuck"


I totally agree re: post secondary.

RBP
09-28-2018, 03:33 AM
:gheyfight:

DemonGeminiX
09-28-2018, 05:18 AM
[-(

Well, why don't you throw your opinion in?

perrhaps
09-28-2018, 08:45 AM
My wife has a cousin who married a citizen of The Netherlands. In order for her to stay there, she was required to pass a literacy test in Dutch one year after her arrival. This seems much fairer than what is being proposed here.

PorkChopSandwiches
09-29-2018, 08:00 PM
Are you saying free schooling shouldn't be burden on taxpayers either?
For citizens yes, not for illegals. If you come here legally and are not a citizen, then that's ok for school as well