Trump wants to overhaul refugee system to favor whites, immigrant-haters, and English speakers.

[Felis Leo]

"Have you considered the fact that American middle class workers have Amazon Alexa and most Norweigians don't" is as stupid as "have you considered the face that Andrew Carnegie didn't have a microwave?"

It's kind of disgusting that if a Norwegian family wants to go shopping, they are forced to take their public transportation to a town with an actual town square full of locally-owned and operated shops and markets that has not been ravaged by Amazon and Wal-Mart in order to get their goods and services.

It's like being in Hell.

Take me back to where it is free and the flame of America's spirit remains unquenched. Take me back to Gary, Indiana.

 

[Questerr]

Based.

A moderate would think that is based.

 

[j brown's body]

There is no massive group of wealthy, urbane, intelligent genuinely liberal white Europeans who want to immigrate to the United States. The great Scandinavian migration is not coming.

It doesnt seem fair does it?

We're stuck with that "tired, poor and huddled masses" crowd

 

[Gimmesometruth]

I'm just saying in general. There are people in this thread acting like prioritizing immigrants from Europe is ontologically evil or some bullshit. Europeans are overwhelmingly liberal, support smart progressive economics, speak English, are culturally aligned, come from stable countries, and essentially come pre-assimilated given the influence of the American empire in Europe.

Maybe this is lost on some of my liberal friends, but isn't it pretty obvious at this point that Trump is in-part a consequence of changing demographics which are beginning to counterbalance American politics toward populism and reactionary conservatism. It turns out that all of those Hispanics are actually traditionalist devout Catholics and they don't give a **** about liberal assumptions about the arc of history.

Some care a lot about the arc of history, some are threatened by cheap labor even more than whites, which is why some have hypocritically bought into the "I got mine" xenophobic backlash against asylum, rejecting Catholic doctrine on welcoming the stranger.

I'm just happy that you are finally, unabashedly announcing your VDARE ideology and coming fully out of the closet.

 

[anatta]

The administration should only welcome “refugees who can be fully and appropriately assimilate, and are aligned with the president’s objectives.”

what objective? and yes the numbers need to severely curtailed for assimilation

To that end, the documents say, Mr. Trump should cancel the applications of hundreds of thousands of people who are already in the pipeline to come to the United States as refugees, many of whom have gone through extensive security checks and referrals.

I have to know more to comment

And Mr. Trump’s federal agencies proposed imposing limits on the number of refugees who can resettle in communities that already have a high population of immigrants, on the basis that the United States should avoid “the concentration of non-native citizens” in order to promote assimilation.

absolutely..no more "Little Somalia" like in Mn. it's a ridiculous to have such a high concentration of refugees -no reason to assimilate if you are resettling into a miniature of your country.

According to the documents, federal agencies have worked to resettle a limited number of Afghans who assisted U.S. soldiers during the war.

The vetting was so poor because of the Biden rout of Kabul, we really dont know whom we let in

Other changes include more intensive security vetting for refugees, including expanded DNA tests for children to ensure they are related to the adults they are traveling with.

that should help stop human trafficing

allowing thousands of refugees from all over the world to enter the nation would overwhelm American communities that have already called for additional resources to assist the record number of migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border during the Biden administration.

we got like 7 million plus ( by my calculation) of migrants under Biden..Frankly i'd just end humanitarian migration for awhile until we can sort thru the mess Biden left behind

This administration unapologetically prioritizes the interests of the American people.”

it's about ****ing time!

 

[Allan]

Frankly i'd just end humanitarian migration for awhile until we can sort thru the mess Biden left behind

A total Muslim ban until you figure out what the hell's going on right?

 

[vanceen]

Hang on. I thought favoring one group does NOT disfavor another.

At least that's how some people tell us affirmative action works.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

... have you been to Europe? Serious question.

I've been to one major city in East Asia and that was Singapore. I'll grant that Singapore was a mind****. That place was like paradise on planet earth, futuristic, clean, stunning. Genuinely a life altering experience to see what's possible with competent governance.

They have a lower level of democratic freedom, no wonder you like them.

Conversely, when I've been to Europe I've seen a standard of living which is comparable or (usually) worse to the United States, particularly in the countryside.

LOL....the countryside in the US has a standard of living higher than the countryside in the EU.

I'm just going to savor that for a while...

 

[anatta]

A total Muslim ban until you figure out what the hell's going on right?

who said anything about exclusive Muslim ban? I mean a worldwide severe curtailment for refugees

 

[Felis Leo]

Hang on. I thought favoring one group does NOT disfavor another.

At least that's how some people tell us affirmative action works.

On it's own, it doesn't. However, if you say that effectively the only people you are going to let in are a bunch of people who share "cultural values" with the United States but are entirely white, that is something else entirely.

 

[vanceen]

On it's own, it doesn't. However, if you say that effectively the only people you are going to let in are a bunch of people who share "cultural values" with the United States but are entirely white, that is something else entirely.

Yes, that's so. But from what I read in the OP about what's being "considered", it has not been proposed to only allow refugees who are "entirely white".

 

[Allan]

... have you been to Europe? Serious question.

Yes.

I've been to one major city in East Asia and that was Singapore. I'll grant that Singapore was a mind****. That place was like paradise on planet earth, futuristic, clean, stunning. Genuinely a life altering experience to see what's possible with competent governance.

Singapore is, like America, ranked as a flawed democracy by EIU.

Conversely, when I've been to Europe I've seen a standard of living which is comparable or (usually) worse to the United States, particularly in the countryside.

Lol. You been to Mississippi?

Norwegians are not lining up to immigrate to the US.

 

[Allan]

who said anything about exclusive Muslim ban? I mean a worldwide severe curtailment for refugees

But mostly Muslims. May as well include Jews as well so you're on brand.

Just white Christians from Europe get in.

 

[vanceen]

...

Just white Christians from Europe get in.

That's not what the NYT link in the OP says.

 

[Allan]

That's not what the NYT link in the OP says.

The Trump administration is considering a radical overhaul of the U.S. refugee system that would slash the program to its bare bones while giving preference to English speakers, white South Africans and Europeans who oppose migration,

 

[The Mark]

Does this apply in the opposite direction as well then? Careful, you're treading dangerously close to vindicating goofy "great replacement" narratives.

Why is one favored over another?

Our immigration laws are the result of a series of laws passed and court rulings made over multiple decades, if not centuries.

For example:

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1101&num=0&edition=prelim

Which defines a refugee thus:

(42) The term "refugee" means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term "refugee" does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.

Which effectively means that we decided to legally define a person being persecuted for unjust reasons, and offer them a place to stay, through a different process then someone seeking to immigrate.

Edit: Which is to say, discrimination isn't inherently bad, but can be if the reasons for it are.

 

[j brown's body]

They have a lower level of democratic freedom, no wonder you like them.

LOL....the countryside in the US has a standard of living higher than the countryside in the EU.

I'm just going to savor that for a while...

They're not exactly Enlightenment thinkers over there.

 

[venice_ca]

If Europeans immigrating to the U.S. think that universal healthcare is a shared value in industrialized countries, are they in for a shock.

As for female Europeans, what a surprise awaits them.

 

[Allan]

They're not exactly Enlightenment thinkers over there.

They're not sending their best.

 

[dmpi]

People say they want a color-bind society where race isn't a factor... and then they don't when they realize the ramifications.

 

[Allan]

If Europeans immigrating to the U.S. think that universal healthcare is a shared value in industrialized countries, are they in for a shock.

As for female Europeans, what a surprise awaits them.

Norwegians pay up to a cap of $295 per year for healthcare services. After that it's free.

Norwegians never hear the phrases 'out of network' or 'pre-existing condition'.

They would indeed be in for a shock.

 

[Allan]

People say they want a color-bind society where race isn't a factor... and then they don't when they realize the ramifications.

Racist comment is racist.

 

[The Mark]

People say they want a color-bind society where race isn't a factor... and then they don't when they realize the ramifications.

What ramifications?

 

[Nickyjo]

The main issue I'd have is selecting for "populist political views" which is something we most definitely do not need. If we brought in millions of white European people who govern and expect a quality of life similar to Vermont, I think that's kickass and I don't think there's really any counter argument to that being objectively a good thing.

Maybe someone can explain this to me, but I've never understood why there's a negative stigma attached to favoring European immigration. They're overwhelmingly liberal, support progressive economics, come from stable countries, and have similar religious and cultural experiences. These seem like ideal immigrants!

The law, changed in 1965, used to have a clear bias, even among the European's admitted. Italians were among those discriminated against. JFK pointed that out when campaigning in my Italian neighborhood in Brooklyn in 1960, mentioning Nixon’s support of the preexisting law.

In our history we have had biases against the Irish, Germans (dumber than Indians, said Ben Franklin), Jews, Chinese, Japanese, and others. And of course, I suppose the few Native Americans around would continue to find Europeans less than ideal.

 

[vanceen]

That's not what the NYT link in the OP says.

The Trump administration is considering a radical overhaul of the U.S. refugee system that would slash the program to its bare bones while giving preference to English speakers, white South Africans and Europeans who oppose migration,

Yes. And that's not what you said. You said:

Just white Christians from Europe get in.