The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from thousands of Venezuelans living in the U.S. for now, in a win for its mass deportation efforts.
Trump is doing jobs, and you all hate all that he does. Mostly you are unreasonable. This is a example,
Their presence here was made temporary. Temporary.
On a similar subject,,CA spends more on illegal aliens than they do on their own pitiful wretches, and a lot of it is OUR money. I could just scream.
https://paragoninstitute.org/medicaid/californias-insurance-tax-shuffle-how-federal-money-ends-up-paying-for-medicaid-for-illegal-immigrants/
@AverageJoe1 saidA good link Joe, highlighting an important problem. Impressive that you are reading real writing these days.
The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to strip temporary legal protections from thousands of Venezuelans living in the U.S. for now, in a win for its mass deportation efforts.
Trump is doing jobs, and you all hate all that he does. Mostly you are unreasonable. This is a example,
Their presence here was made temporary. Temporary.
On a similar subject, ...[text shortened]... ifornias-insurance-tax-shuffle-how-federal-money-ends-up-paying-for-medicaid-for-illegal-immigrants/
One caveat to your thesis: California is a net donor to the federal coffers. Most of the takers are in red states. I'm not sure why the article focused on California when the other states seem to do the same thing.
@wildgrass saidit would take some study, which I am never really up to. But according to the news, my news, I think you will see that it is the blue states with these problems.
A good link Joe, highlighting an important problem. Impressive that you are reading real writing these days.
One caveat to your thesis: California is a net donor to the federal coffers. Most of the takers are in red states. I'm not sure why the article focused on California when the other states seem to do the same thing.
I think you might find that Florida and Tennessee and Georgia etc don’t tolerate that crap.
@AverageJoe1 saidLast year Calfornians paid $78 billion more to the federal government than they received in payments.
it would take some study, which I am never really up to. But according to the news, my news, I think you will see that it is the blue states with these problems.
I think you might find that Florida and Tennessee and Georgia etc don’t tolerate that crap.
Georgia also paid more.
Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina took $100 billion more than they contributed. I don't know what they're spending it on, but the red states get their handouts from California taxpayers.
@AverageJoe1 saidFrom the Venezuelans, yes of course there's risk. Silly question since no one would deny that.
Why don’t liberals acknowledge that people such as the Venezuelan’s knew coming in that they were risk involved.? That is aWhy don’t liberals acknowledge that people such as the Venezuelan‘s new coming in that they were risks involved.? That is a simple as I can ask it.
From the government, the policy of revoking TPS is asinine.
@wildgrass saidIf it was a temporary admittance of Venezuelans into our country, can you tell us when temporary was supposed to end? I simply do not get your point.
From the Venezuelans, yes of course there's risk. Silly question since no one would deny that.
From the government, the policy of revoking TPS is asinine.
So, I have one question of you. If we had to vote, which of Democrats or Republicans do you think is more concerned about sovereignty?
@AverageJoe1 saidIt ends whenever the goobermint wants it to end. Obviously. Venezuelans know this. Obviously.
If it was a temporary admittance of Venezuelans into our country, can you tell us when temporary was supposed to end? I simply do not get your point.
So, I have one question of you. If we had to vote, which of Democrats or Republicans do you think is more concerned about sovereignty?
From a policy standpoint, the policy of removing TPS status that was previously granted to these workers is asinine. It creates a huge, unnecessary bureaucratic headache for everyone involved and ends up costing the government huge amounts of money. Meanwhile, these folks can't legally work or pay taxes because they've lost their residency status.
@wildgrass saidSo, you agree that they took a risk at coming into a country. The risk being that they might not be able to stay as long as they’d like to? Or banking on the fact that the government would forget about them and they would never have to go back? So it may have been a gamble.
From the Venezuelans, yes of course there's risk. Silly question since no one would deny that.
From the government, the policy of revoking TPS is asinine.
In any event, they are due to go back. So I do not understand what the discussion is all about in the news or here on the forum. There is an agreement that if they come here, they will be going back. Nothing has changed.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidYou are right, I was just stating the facts as they exist today. If I were president, I would sign an executive order that all of them be approved to become citizens, or go home. If they have been here for a set time, let’s say five years, and we do a record search on every one of them, which is spotless, and of course, that they speak very good English, then just go ahead and make them citizens.
It ends whenever the goobermint wants it to end. Obviously. Venezuelans know this. Obviously.
From a policy standpoint, the policy of removing TPS status that was previously granted to these workers is asinine. It creates a huge, unnecessary bureaucratic headache for everyone involved and ends up costing the government huge amounts of money. Meanwhile, these folks can't legally work or pay taxes because they've lost their residency status.
We need immigrants to work in this country, there is no question. But we need to know who they are. The liberals on this forum don’t care who they are as far as I can tell over these years of posting.
@AverageJoe1 saidWhy do you keep asking questions that we're already answered?
So, you agree that they took a risk at coming into a country. The risk being that they might not be able to stay as long as they’d like to? Or banking on the fact that the government would forget about them and they would never have to go back? So it may have been a gamble.
In any event, they are due to go back. So I do not understand what the discussion is all abou ...[text shortened]... e forum. There is an agreement that if they come here, they will be going back. Nothing has changed.
These folks had temporary protection status and now they don't. That has changed, so your comment is ridiculous. The removal of their status creates a huge and unnecessary and expensive situation for the federal government. It might be the least effective possible solution to remove immigrants.
@wildgrass said? They came here under caution that it was a temporary visit, was it not? I am no marauder so I don’t study this stuff. Correct me if I am wrong. It is a for you to say that. That they had temporary status but now they don’t. Then you follow that with a statement that has changed. And then you say the status was removed.
Why do you keep asking questions that we're already answered?
These folks had temporary protection status and now they don't. That has changed, so your comment is ridiculous. The removal of their status creates a huge and unnecessary and expensive situation for the federal government. It might be the least effective possible solution to remove immigrants.
So you see my confusion. Was it temporary or was it not. If it was not temporary, I will be standing corrected.
@AverageJoe1 saidWe both know what the word temporary means. Yay. Would you like to continue asking questions that have already been answered about it?
? They came here under caution that it was a temporary visit, was it not? I am no marauder so I don’t study this stuff. Correct me if I am wrong. It is a for you to say that. That they had temporary status but now they don’t. Then you follow that with a statement that has changed. And then you say the status was removed.
So you see my confusion. Was it temporary or was it not. If it was not temporary, I will be standing corrected.
If you are granted something temporarily and then that grant is revoked, how can you argue nothing's changed? It obviously has changed.
By revoking TPS, the administration sets up an expensive headache for itself, likely due to incompetence of the decision makers. Congress can and should reinstate TPS and then the government can move forward with deportation via normal means.
@wildgrass saidYeah, the trouble it causes may be worth a thread for sure. Note that I presented a solution so that it would NOT be a problem, which is to make the qualified people citizens. I am not being that difficult here.
We both know what the word temporary means. Yay. Would you like to continue asking questions that have already been answered about it?
If you are granted something temporarily and then that grant is revoked, how can you argue nothing's changed? It obviously has changed.
By revoking TPS, the administration sets up an expensive headache for itself, likely due to incomp ...[text shortened]... and should reinstate TPS and then the government can move forward with deportation via normal means.
So, all that notwithstanding, , I can only assume, not being the research maven that marauder and Sunhouse are, I can only assume that ‘temporary’ meant that they would be here temporarily. I could be wrong about that. So that puts the ball back into your court , to tell me what the word ‘ temporary’ meant in this scenario.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidWe've had multiple threads on this. TPS is a legal work around to the problem of not being able to deport people, giving them legal 'status' so they can work and pay taxes.
Yeah, the trouble it causes may be worth a thread for sure. Note that I presented a solution so that it would NOT be a problem, which is to make the qualified people citizens. I am not being that difficult here.
So, all that notwithstanding, , I can only assume, not being the research maven that marauder and Sunhouse are, I can only assume that ‘temporary’ meant th ...[text shortened]... puts the ball back into your court , to tell me what the word ‘ temporary’ meant in this scenario.
The word temporary in this context clarifies that there isn't a pathway to a green card in this program.
Revoking TPS means they can no longer work, but doesn't help the government in deporting them. Each case will now be tied up in court.