rumitoid

I do not think I have read anything better worded about our proper stance on, and an explanation of, immigration then by Mr. Miller:
“Immigration is an issue that affects all others,” Miller said, speaking in structured paragraphs. “Immigration affects our health-care system. Immigration affects our education system. Immigration affects our public safety, it affects our national security, it affects our economy and our financial system. It touches upon everything, but the goal is to create an immigration system that enhances the vibrancy, the unity, the togetherness and the strength of our society.”

The need for a wall and his suggestion about improving our i*********n l*ws to enhance "the vibrancy, the unity, the togetherness and the strength of our society,” both seem spot on. Apparently foolish and destructive not to agree with him. It is what most Conservatives have known all along and lobbied for on the issue.

Let's take the waves of Irish immigrants during two potato famines. How many of the Irish here had ancestors that were part of those two migrations? They came here in mortal desperation, starving and destitute and mostly without sk**ls. Nearly a million came to this country and helped to reshape our country and produce great men and women in many fields.

But if we had "public charge" then (like the poor Jews during WWII), a vast number of you would never know existence. How many? Impossible to say, of course, but it would have to be at least in the hundreds of thousands and probably more. (The Irish do take procreation seriously.)

Ireland was a death trap from 1845 to 1851; over a million died. We were "wretched refuse," in a very unfortunate state. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore." Not your Norwegians, doctors, lawyers, scientists, tradesman only.

My opinion. "Public charge" is a disgraceful policy, though I understand and see why it may be implemented today with our present border crisis. Evidence seems to suggest the "crisis" was manufactured by Trump, yet that question is in the air at present (by people straining vigorously against to be fair).

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Hello Rumi, I hope you’re doing better, and out of the hospital by now.

I haven’t been following this “public charge” rule being talked about lately. But what has struck me, is the terminology being used to describe it as something “new”. I was familiar with the term from my early days of study, which is I guess why I was struck by the term new. As you may or may not know, the public charge rule has been used in i*********n l*w since the 1800’s, 1882 specifically. When passed in 1882, it excluded from entry into the United States, quote, "any convict, lunatic, i***t or any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge." And that language has been a feature of federal i*********n l*w ever since. So, it’s not exactly “new”, and it’s certainly not something that Trump (or more pointedly, Cuccinelli) came up with all by himself. Then, in 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act which was a massive overhaul of the welfare system. Essentially, what the law provided was that most legal immigrants were going to be ineligible to receive a range of benefits for the first five years of U.S. residence. As I’m sure you’ve heard the President make reference to. I will concede though, many of those (not all) benefits were reinstated in 2002. Which is what I think the current administration is really trying to address, (the welfare state) and not so much the limiting of certain nationalities or ethnicities, or what have you. I do find it most interesting that three states, only now, want to sue the government over the term. One can’t help but see this as just more Trump resistance. Would these states feel the same way if this current administration was Democrat? And, why weren’t these states concerned about the “public charge” rule prior to now? It’s been there for about 140 years...

Just my two cents on the matter. Any thoughts?

rumitoid

You seem quite educated on this law. It was objected to by few during WWII, wasn't it? Maybe small arguments to save Jews from death. What of my supposition about our first real wave of immigrants: "public change" probably would have k**led my Irish ancestors...and me and my family kept from existence. A million died in Ireland at the time; if the destitute and desperate Irish were rightly denied entry, make that million dead at least half higher.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

That would require some in depth study. I did have a peek at it years ago, to the best of my recollection that argument was hard to sway in either direction. Probably why I dropped it.

What of your supposition? I think you pretty much took care of that when you said, ”impossible to say”.

I think perhaps I misunderstood the direction in which you wished your post to take. This post leads me to believe you want(ed) to explore generalities and guess work. That’s not really my thing....

rumitoid

Sorry if I seemed to mislead you. I was using an analogy, I thought, that would cast serious dispersion on "public charge." It is r****t and unjust. Hope that makes my position clearer.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Oh, your position was clear. What wasn’t, for me, was which direction you wanted to take this.

That your position is the rule is r****t and unjust, then wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that you think the words of MLK about being judged on content of character are also r****t and unjust?

rumitoid

The content of character is the basic, or perhaps ultimate, prejudice. MLK Jr. was h**ed or loved because of it. Sides are always taken with a strong personality, for a myriad of reasons. But that is not the question of this thread albeit it a more interesting one, lol.

.