Trump's future immigration policies- speculation MEGATHREAD

[FloridaMinsk 88]

On 2/9/2017 at 9:28 PM, Leo7777 said:

9th Court of Appeals.  Among other wording, the ruling said:  " . . . people in the United States without authorization have due process rights . . ."

 

Pretty incredible.

 

Imagine going to another country illegally . . . and then being granted rights ????

 

USA citizens . . . try this in another country.

 

Its a joke.   

 

Thankfully ICE is sweeping these people up now.    And once Trump signs a new EO the suspension can go back In play...   probably not affecting GC holders until the other plays out in court.    

[Dutchster 1,107]

7 hours ago, amoooooor said:

There's a Tunishian girl at my work (in Qatar) who married a guy from the Netherlands and all day at work she's practicing her Dutch as she wants to move there. 

I feel bad that she's having to be separated from her husband because he's working there and she hasn't obtained the citizenship yet. 

I like the Netherlands's immigration system and I do agree with that if you want to live in a certain country, you have to be able to understand and speak the language. That's how I feel about moving to the US too, people who want to live here have to be able to speak English at least on an elementary level.

[David&Femke 91]

1 hour ago, Dutchster said:

I like the Netherlands's immigration system and I do agree with that if you want to live in a certain country, you have to be able to understand and speak the language. That's how I feel about moving to the US too, people who want to live here have to be able to speak English at least on an elementary level.

In theory it sounds resenable, but Dutch is not really a world language. Its one of the harderst languages to learn and in most countrys inpossible to find a teacher for it. There are people who have a really hard time learning from books and it can take years. If they were allowed to atleast stay in the netherlands on a temporary or travel visa, they would have a better change learning, and the netherlans only allows that for 1st world countrys. I dont think that is very fair. My morrocan nagbour has been saperated from her husband for almost 5 years now, and she is a refugee that cant return to marroco for her own safety. and non of her family is allowed to even visit her.

[Ahmed & Amy 291]

1 hour ago, David&Femke said:

In theory it sounds resenable, but Dutch is not really a world language. Its one of the harderst languages to learn and in most countrys inpossible to find a teacher for it. There are people who have a really hard time learning from books and it can take years. If they were allowed to atleast stay in the netherlands on a temporary or travel visa, they would have a better change learning, and the netherlans only allows that for 1st world countrys. I dont think that is very fair. My morrocan nagbour has been saperated from her husband for almost 5 years now, and she is a refugee that cant return to marroco for her own safety. and non of her family is allowed to even visit her.

When I was registering Sumayyah into school in the US, one of the questions they asked is if she speaks English (As she was born in Egypt and has lived here for her entire life so far). Before I was even able to answer, they said that the school offered assistance to students and parents who wanted to learn English or improve on their English skills. Thankfully she is fluent in English as well as in Arabic, so her learning English isn't a problem.

I believe ideally, yes people should know the language of the country they are wanting to immigrate to, but I also understand the difficulty learning a language on your own without guidance or assistance. Learning Arabic has been difficult for me and I most likely would have never been able to learn as much if I had not have lived in Egypt. I do agree that being surrounded by the language makes it a bit more easier than going alone, and that helping the person learn in the country they are intending on living in would be helpful (such as you're neighbor who's married and still unable to have her husband with her.)

In Egypt English is the second language and is taught in almost all schools; so I believe that's why it was easier for my husband to learn it and of course us being married as long as we have, majority of our conversation is in English. I think it's different and much more difficult for those who are not exposed at all to the foreign language of the country that they are intending on immigrating to.  

[SparklePony 238]

For those who talk about how easy it is to immigrate to the US, it can be or not, depending on where you're from and whether or not you qualify. Citizens of some countries can't apply for diversity visas, and if they don't have family or a special skill that can get them a work visa, there aren't many options left. And while for European countries the K1s are fairly easy peasy, for others it's not easy at all. I think a lot of visas are handed out because a lot of people apply, but does anyone have statistics on how many are also denied?

 

And while some 1st World countries are very hard to immigrate to (Netherlands and Denmark have been mentioned), others may not be. I'm not familiar with the rules for all of them, but I know for Portugal it is very easy. Not easy at all to gain citizenship, but you don't need that to legally work and live there - that's why so many UKers retire there. The only reason my husband didn't move there was because he was a lot more stable, financially, than I was, and it was going to be a lot easier for me to move here in terms of culture (I had lived here as a child for 3 years). I would love to have my parents move here one day - my dad has lived and worked in the US (legally) several times, and absolutely loves it here. And his line of work is much more advanced here than back home. At his age, I highly doubt he could get a work visa, though.

[embay16 12]

Not sure if this has been posted here already (as I tried searching and had no luck, so apologies if this is a duplicate), but according to this Factsheet (also attached) on Executive Order's from Legal Aid Society, there are 3 other draft orders that have not yet been signed (Part II).

 

"one would end the DACA program and change priorities for removal, a second would change the way the receipt of certain government benefits affects immigrants and their sponsors, and a third would affect foreign workers". See Part II. What May Happen Soon for more specifics. 

Factsheet Executive Orders on Immigration (ver 7 English).pdf

[Leo7777 243]

8 minutes ago, embay16 said:

Not sure if this has been posted here already (as I tried searching and had no luck, so apologies if this is a duplicate), but according to this Factsheet (also attached) on Executive Order's from Legal Aid Society, there are 3 other draft orders that have not yet been signed (Part II).

 

"one would end the DACA program and change priorities for removal, a second would change the way the receipt of certain government benefits affects immigrants and their sponsors, and a third would affect foreign workers". See Part II. What May Happen Soon for more specifics. 

Factsheet Executive Orders on Immigration (ver 7 English).pdf

Quite amazing that organizations in USA are set up to provide legal assistance to those who have knowingly broken the law . . . and continue to do so.

 

What other country would help continuing law breakers ??

[FloridaMinsk 88]

13 minutes ago, Leo7777 said:

Quite amazing that organizations in USA are set up to provide legal assistance to those who have knowingly broken the law . . . and continue to do so.

 

What other country would help continuing law breakers ??

 

It is amazing.   

 

I look forward to once Kelly gets his immigration judges on the border to process these people immediately.    

 

Which coincidentally I believe aren't actual judges....   if I remember they are political appointees, which was a concern with obama and his lawlessness.    

 

I am sure someone will correct me if I am mistaken on them being actual judges or not.  

[FloridaMinsk 88]

11 hours ago, SparklePony said:

For those who talk about how easy it is to immigrate to the US, it can be or not, depending on where you're from and whether or not you qualify. Citizens of some countries can't apply for diversity visas, and if they don't have family or a special skill that can get them a work visa, there aren't many options left. And while for European countries the K1s are fairly easy peasy, for others it's not easy at all. I think a lot of visas are handed out because a lot of people apply, but does anyone have statistics on how many are also denied?

 

And while some 1st World countries are very hard to immigrate to (Netherlands and Denmark have been mentioned), others may not be. I'm not familiar with the rules for all of them, but I know for Portugal it is very easy. Not easy at all to gain citizenship, but you don't need that to legally work and live there - that's why so many UKers retire there. The only reason my husband didn't move there was because he was a lot more stable, financially, than I was, and it was going to be a lot easier for me to move here in terms of culture (I had lived here as a child for 3 years). I would love to have my parents move here one day - my dad has lived and worked in the US (legally) several times, and absolutely loves it here. And his line of work is much more advanced here than back home. At his age, I highly doubt he could get a work visa, though.

 

I would love to see the data on that as well.   

 

I welcome tougher standards to immigrate.    I have always been worried we wouldn't make it through, even though we were able to check all the boxes.    I was prepared to move to Belarus if things didn't work out for us.   Fortunately I don't care for the cold and south Florida suites me better that way.  Heck we may end up moving back there anyway, which would be cool as well.     

[SparklePony 238]

Tougher standards than what there are now will always be subjective - when people say "Oh, what would make sense is to do X or Y or Z", they're looking at it from their very own perspective which may not make sense at all to someone else. As an example, skilled workers - why not increase skilled labor *within* the American work force?

 

Same as saying older rules were better because that's when the country had the best economy... well, immigrant policies are for sure not the only factor behind economic booms. IMO, the real issue underneath it all is not immigration policies but work/business policies. Illegal immigrants wouldn't flock here if they weren't able to find jobs and make a better living than what they had back home. That's where the battle needs to happen - the immigration aspect of it is just a symptom. Same with giving Americans a leg up in the workforce - it's with those hiring that changes need to happen, not in regards to who enters. And the same with benefits - if they are being given out illegally, that's the fault in the system, not with the immigrants. The system needs to be fixed, otherwise - again - you're just treating the symptom (I confess to some bewilderment here, as I have no idea how immigrants are getting access to benefits they can't have access to, Unless fraud is being committed?).

 

Just seems to me that so many times the immigrant is the perfect scapegoat, and the real problems aren't being addressed.

Edited February 13, 2017 by SparklePony

[N-o-l-a 7,168]

47 minutes ago, FloridaMinsk said:

 

 

On the merits; DACA should have been killed already....  there is no reason we should be protecting these people and their anchor babies. 

 

That being said..... I doubt he does anything to DACA via executive order.   I think he doesn't want to burn it all down and possibly poison a tough new immigration bill in congress.   

 

 

DACA has nothing to do with anchor babies.  These people were basically trafficked illegally by their parents into this country.  I'm sympathetic, but realize that DACA encourages furtherance of the same issue.

 

DAPA has already been held up in the courts.

[FloridaMinsk 88]

5 minutes ago, N-o-l-a said:

 

DACA has nothing to do with anchor babies.  These people were basically trafficked illegally by their parents into this country.  I'm sympathetic, but realize that DACA encourages furtherance of the same issue.

 

DAPA has already been held up in the courts.

 

Send them all back to where they came.  

 

Either they are going to follow the law or they can take their lawless behavior back to where they came.   

 

it baffles me why anyone has any sympathy for these people.   Hard to respect or have sympathy for people who knowingly thwart the very laws that each of us here on this board follow to the letter.   These illegals make it harder on those of us who do it legally.   Because of the lawless illegals now legal immigrants will be cut down in future legislation.   That's a shame that the good and decent people who follow the laws are punished because these people think they are above the law.  

[embay16 12]

 

@Leo7777 Not sure what you are implying about Legal Aid. They do so many different things for people who cannot afford attorneys. Just because someone has "broken the law" does not mean they don't deserve assistance in defense. And this also assumes that the law is in the right 100% of the time which is not always the case (if you need examples think about forced migration of the indigenous or internment camps).

 

@FloridaMinsk That was so insanely rude "these people and their anchor babies". One, they are human beings with feelings not "these people". Second, children most of the time have so little say in what their families do, and as such cannot be held responsible for their parent's actions.

 

I guess I should have expected things like this in the "speculation thread", but I was simply just trying to provide some more solid speculation (i.e. draft executive orders). It should be noted that this country started off as a nation of immigrants (undocumented, forced and legal), and has been built on the oppression of marginalized communities, particularly the indigenous population that was here before the US became the US through force, death and long-time oppression.

[FloridaMinsk 88]

22 minutes ago, SparklePony said:

Tougher standards than what there are now will always be subjective - when people say "Oh, what would make sense is to do X or Y or Z", they're looking at it from their very own perspective which may not make sense at all to someone else. As an example, skilled workers - why not increase skilled labor *within* the American work force?

 

Same as saying older rules were better because that's when the country had the best economy... well, immigrant policies are for sure not the only factor behind economic booms. IMO, the real issue underneath it all is not immigration policies but work/business policies. Illegal immigrants wouldn't flock here if they weren't able to find jobs and make a better living than what they had back home. That's where the battle needs to happen - the immigration aspect of it is just a symptom. Same with giving Americans a leg up in the workforce - it's with those hiring that changes need to happen, not in regards to who enters. And the same with benefits - if they are being given out illegally, that's the fault in the system, not with the immigrants. The system needs to be fixed, otherwise - again - you're just treating the symptom (I confess to some bewilderment here, as I have no idea how immigrants are getting access to benefits they can't have access to, Unless fraud is being committed?).

 

Just seems to me that so many times the immigrant is the perfect scapegoat, and the real problems aren't being addressed.

 

The only reason we need restrictions on immigration now is so we can sort out the 5 decades of illegals who have been stampeding over our southern border.   

 

No one is against skilled workers or other legal immigrants.   But there is a need to slow it down while we sort out the illegals.    

 

So once again the good and decent people get the shaft while we cater to lawless scam artists.   

[Transborderwife 4,666]

1 hour ago, FloridaMinsk said:

 

Thank you for posting.    

 

On the merits; DACA should have been killed already....  there is no reason we should be protecting these people and their anchor babies. 

 

That being said..... I doubt he does anything to DACA via executive order.   I think he doesn't want to burn it all down and possibly poison a tough new immigration bill in congress.   

 

Foreign workers: common sense adjustments need to be made to protect American workers.    Sorry but Americans should get the leg up over people from other countries.   Especially these third worlders.   

 

On benefits; the sponsor and immigrant should get into trouble if benefits are applied for and/or received.   We don't need economic migrants.   I would be in favour of benefits only being available to US born citizens.   Lord knows we need to make cuts in social benefit programs already. 

 

I would look at Cotton and others to put forth a tough immigration bill.   Hopefully with hard caps on immigrants per year per country.  Similar to the 1924 immigration policy that we thrived under.   

Umm...DACA has absolutely zero to do with anchor babies.