DACA DELUSION: Kirsten Gillibrand Says ‘Chain Migration’ is a ‘RACIST SLUR’

[mustang85635 182]

 

Leftie loonies at it again on “The View” 

Chuck Schumers sidekick Gillibrand (viewed by many as Dems 2020 candidate) on the show trying to save Chucks baby the visa lottery and going into full PC crazy mode on the topic of CHAIN MIGRATION. 

http://freebeacon.com/politics/gillibrand-chain-migration-phrase-racist-slur/

 

God help us all.

Edited February 5, 2018 by mustang85635

[mustang85635 182]

Its official , everyone on this forum is racist. Knew it. 

[TBoneTX 45,291]

Thread is moved from US Immigration News to the Current Events forum.

[eieio 1,594]

14 hours ago, mustang85635 said:

 

Leftie loonies at it again on “The View” 

Chuck Schumers sidekick Gillibrand (viewed by many as Dems 2020 candidate) on the show trying to save Chucks baby the visa lottery and going into full PC crazy mode on the topic of CHAIN MIGRATION. 

http://freebeacon.com/politics/gillibrand-chain-migration-phrase-racist-slur/

 

God help us all.

If chain migration was actually the slightest bit racist....you would think crying chuck Schumer and his sidekicks would want to end it? No?  

[smilesammich 10,727]

Quote

"I think a lot of President Trump's rhetoric is racist. Let's be very clear: when someone uses the phrase chain migration … it is intentional in trying to demonize families, literally trying to demonize families and make it a racist slur," Gillibrand said.

agreed.

[charmander 692]

Wrong title... Gillibrand used the phrase "chained migration" in that sentence, actually twice. watch the video on that link right from the 1:18 mark.  Who knows what she thinks about chain migration but whatever chained migration means she clearly thinks it is a racial slur. That being said, I don't think chain migration is a racial slur.

[smilesammich 10,727]

depends on how it's used. family reunification doesn't sound negative or abusive, and it is more factually descriptive - because people are bringing over family. chain migration (or chained, whatever) sounds negative and abusive and brings to mind a long line of random individuals waiting their turn to migrate.

[charmander 692]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

depends on how it's used. family reunification doesn't sound negative or abusive, and it is more factually descriptive - because people are bringing over family. chain migration (or chained, whatever) sounds negative and abusive and brings to mind a long line of random individuals waiting their turn to migrate.

But it is in fact a long line of individuals waiting their turn to immigrate. F3/F4 married adult children and sibling categories take more than 22-23 years to process for the citizens of Philippines or Mexico. Best case scenario still a 13-14 years long process for others.

 

Reunification sounds like families were separated against their will. For refugees or asylees it is the case but I don't think most of us were forced to leave our home countries or leave our families behind.

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, charmander said:

But it is in fact a long line of individuals waiting their turn to immigrate. F3/F4 married adult children and sibling categories take more than 22-23 years to process for the citizens of Philippines or Mexico. Best case scenario still a 13-14 years long process for others.

 

Reunification sounds like families were separated against their will. For refugees or asylees it is the case but I don't think most of us were forced to leave our home countries or leave our families behind.

no, but if one has the means to bring over family they've left behind and want to bring them over that's their business imo. i think we all want the option to bring over our own families but consider others that we don't know personally as simply a long line of individuals waiting their turn. in reality, the long line of individuals is comprised of someone's family..calling it chain immigration dehumanizes the process.

just like we see people here say, "i don't want to bring over my family, my family doesn't want to come, i decided to come here and knew the consequence of leaving family behind" it's all anecdotal until the option is off the table for an individual, personally.

[jg121783 3,915]

Personally I don't think someone granted the privilege to immigrate here is entitled to bring their whole family solely on the basis that they are related. I would make an exception for minor dependents of the immigrant assuming they are otherwise qualified to immigrate here. If you are approved to live here as an immigrant you accept that privilege knowing full well you will be leaving your family behind. If you dont want to leave your family behind don't come here. There should be no inherent right to immigrate here just because your family member immigrated here unless they apply for and are qualified to immigrate here independent of their family member. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

How ‘chain migration’ brought us the Trump White House

[charmander 692]

1 minute ago, smilesammich said:

no, but if one has the means to bring over family they've left behind and want to bring them over that's their business imo. i think we all want the option to bring over our own families but consider others that we don't know personally as simply a long line of individuals waiting their turn. in reality, the long line of individuals is comprised of someone's family..calling it chain immigration dehumanizes the process.

just like we see people here say, "i don't want to bring over my family, my family doesn't want to come, i decided to come here and knew the consequence of leaving family behind" it's all anecdotal until the option is off the table for an individual, personally.

And RAISE ACT still letting that US citizen who has the means to bring over parents bring them here on a non-immigrant residential permit. I think the same should apply for the siblings and adult children too. If US citizen is wealthy enough, bring them here same way. Doors would be open for them if they can find a job who would sponsor them H1B or employment-based GC, or if they get married to a US citizen, they will adjust status.

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, charmander said:

And RAISE ACT still letting that US citizen who has the means to bring over parents bring them here on a non-immigrant residential permit. I think the same should apply for the siblings and adult children too. If US citizen is wealthy enough, bring them here same way. Doors would be open for them if they can find a job who would sponsor them H1B or employment-based GC, or if they get married to a US citizen, they will adjust status.

i have additional issues with the raise act. i think allowing those with the means to sponsor family to do so is a no brainer, but i also think that there should be balance so not only the wealthy can immigrate. we need the diversity visa process to provide that balance.

[AshMarty 360]

23 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

i have additional issues with the raise act. i think allowing those with the means to sponsor family to do so is a no brainer, but i also think that there should be balance so not only the wealthy can immigrate. we need the diversity visa process to provide that balance.

So you are suggesting we focus our energy on the poor immigrants rather than focus on improving the lives of the poor USC citizens? I think the country is pretty outweighed with poverty as it is.

 

In order to help the USCs that are already here we need to look at what benefits the country. I have no issues with having parents come over but I think the regulations need to be readdressed in order to set up a family for a successful immigration experience. Asking someone if they make a small percent over the poverty line does not set up an adult immigrant that has no interest in working for success. Poverty is not what people immigrating to the US are hoping to live in. Setting up realistic standards for what would make a successful retirement in the US as an immigration standard would be a much better idea for the individual immigrating and for the country as a whole. Older immigrants aren't refugees (fleeing from their country) they are making a lifestyle choice. 

[bcking 3,157]

Opinions of the actual law/practice aside,

 

I wouldn't say the term "Chain Migration" is a racist slur. Chain migration applies to ANY immigrant coming in through a family connection. Their race doesn't matter. If my wife tried to bring her parents over to the US from the UK that would be chain migration.

 

The term isn't really discriminating against particular races. It's discriminating against immigrants in general. It's "immigrantist" I guess? Generally I find it used in an "Anti-immigration" way, or by people who are speaking of it negatively. I tend to find people who support the process using other phrases ("Family reunification").