181–190 of 191 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the countries with free healthcare are dying at the seams. Look at the NHS in England, you can't even get appointments as there are so few doctors. Operations take years to be done. In the USA you get ops real fast and doctors can be seen same day. Obamacare has only reset back to pre-COVID subsidies so it was always temporary the COVID subsidies, per the Inflation Reduction Act 2021.
> In the USA you get ops real fast and doctors can be seen same day. IF the patient has Medical Insurance. Only in the USA, medical insurance seems to be tied to employment. Non-employment driven medicare is unaffordable except for the filthy rich. If someone is unemployed or poor, they won't be able to afford or get healthcare (not even for a toothache!) in the USA. EU nations are struggling with state-sponsored Med…
Sadly you are drastically overestimating American patriots
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Healthcare in USA is a nightmare, from almost every perspective. But a lot of countries like Canada, EU nations and other developed countries (and even in developing nations like India) have free or affordable healthcare systems. So, at least from a healthcare metric, most of these nations trump USA (pun intended, since Trump scrapped or crippled Obamacare, which itself wasn't a full-fledged solution to the healthcar…
Most of the countries with free healthcare are dying at the seams. Look at the NHS in England, you can't even get appointments as there are so few doctors. Operations take years to be done. In the USA you get ops real fast and doctors can be seen same day. Obamacare has only reset back to pre-COVID subsidies so it was always temporary the COVID subsidies, per the Inflation Reduction Act 2021.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Makes sense - and I have interacted with bureaucracy in a lot of countries. The FUD that US immigration seem to install in immigrants seems uncalled for.
The Republicans have never liked immigrants. They have succeeded in keeping things underfunded so the bureaucracy stretches out far longer than needed in a sane system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
#6 is false. His claims were not accurate, nor has there been any realistic demonstration of Israeli war crimes. The "proof" is always underwear gnome logic. Something bad happened, thus it must be an Israeli war crime.
Doesn't matter, it's just speech. If you want to say free speech doesn't apply to certain classes of persons then this should be made very loud and clear so these persons can avoid coming to the USA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Detention is literally being used arbitrarily, before the decision is made to even determine the person is an alien. If something is uneccesary its usually being used as punishment. >there would be still a detention to move him or her from the place where they were found to the bus or plane. Whats wrong with a court order and a plane ticket? Other than nothing at all. (The usual response from the border brainrot is t…
>Detention is literally being used arbitrarily, before the decision is made to even determine the person is an alien. If something is uneccesary its usually being used as punishment. It is not. There has to be a reason to believe the person is an illegal alien. In this article, for example, all detainees presented documentation of their illegal presence and identified themselves with photo ID. >Whats wrong with a cou…
So, give them a court order to board a flight? Like if they are willing to prove their illegal status why is detention needed?
>Someone already broke the law and is in the country illegally. What are the reasons for them to listen and follow a court order? Also, the immigration being a civil matter, how do you even obtain such an order? Sue them and go through a trial? There are already laws that allow removal of these aliens so this looks just like some redittor's wish-list in lieu of knowing the law.
Yeah its a civil matter, so there shouldn't be detention. Great point.
Also, have you considered that the arbitrary detention is the reason someone might refuse to attend?
>how do you even obtain such an order?
Whoever is sending ICE to detain people raises the case on behalf of the government? >What are the reasons for them to listen and follow a court order?
Why are they renting a house, paying taxes and following every other law? Just off the top of my head, criminal contempt, due to violation of the court order, would prevent almost any attempt at legal reentry?
>There are already laws that allow removal of these aliens so this looks just like some redittor's wish-list in lieu of knowing the law.
Invoking reddit is the most reddit thing you can do.
>There are already laws that permit the removal of aliens
Yeah, but the system is clearly deranged and we are discussing that obvious derangement.
>Yeah, it seems that you don't see the reason. Can't explain something to somebody who is unwilling to understand.
You are doing the classic "I will outline the rules as justification for the rules". You have done nothing to establish your position from first principles. What you have written might be enough to convince yourself, but you haven't provided anything like a justification. "Oh they might try and escape" well ignoring a court order is actually justification to lock someone up. There's no justification for the assumption that someone might commit a crime, even if we were to agree that a misdemeanor makes someones soul black and marked as a criminal forever and a day (Which we dont agree, thats another weird seppoism).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article strongly misrepresents this, and they were almost certainly not detained for over-staying, but likely for fraudulent entry. See my other comment.
Except there has been no determination of a fraudulent entry. This is skipping directly from accusation to punishment. And it is definitely possible to have entered without an intent to marry. The day the woman I married entered the US she did not know of my existence. We met here.
If you are already married, then you enter the country with an assertion that you have no intent to immigrate, then you soon after apply to immigrate, chances you were not lying are vanishingly slim.
Yes, if you meet after you enter the country, then that doesn't apply to you. That's exactly when it is appropriate to apply from inside the country and stay while your application is pending. That's not what these couples are doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read my other comment. It’s fraudulent based on intent, which they don’t know until you apply for change of status.
I read your other comment; it just doesn't stand muster. Fraudulent entry can only happen on entry. If they had no intent to be married on entry, then there's no fraud on entry, and therefore it doesn't apply.
The timeline is:
1. Foreigner is married to or intends to marry a US citizen and live in the US (they know this; the government doesn't). 2. Foreigner enters the US with the assertion they have no intent to immigrate (they know this is false; US doesn't). 3. Couple applies for change of status to immigrate → This reveals the foreigner's original intent to immigrate even at the time of entry (the US now knows the entry was fraudulent)
I'm not defending the law; I believe it's haphazard and inhumane. Why do you get to apply while together inside the US only if you decided to marry and immigrate after entering the US, but if the foreigner is outside the US at the time you make the decision, you're now locked out for years? But that is what it is, and these people are getting burned trying to skirt the law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read your other comment; it just doesn't stand muster. Fraudulent entry can only happen on entry. If they had no intent to be married on entry, then there's no fraud on entry, and therefore it doesn't apply.
"You let me in at the time, therefore you can never deem the past entry fraudulent" is not how the law works. It was fraudulent at the time of entry, but the government doesn't know that until true intent is revealed when the foreigner applies for a change of status. The timeline is: 1. Foreigner is married to or intends to marry a US citizen and live in the US (they know this; the government doesn't). 2. Foreigner e…
That's not my argument. My argument is that there are cases where the intent literally changes. There was no intent to immigrate when entering, but that intent did change after entry.
> Foreigner is married to
We're talking right now about people met who their spouse after entry.
> or intends to marry a US citizen and live in the US (they know this; the government doesn't).
This requires mens rea and is next to impossible to prove without some documentation.
> 2. Foreigner enters the US with the assertion they have no intent to immigrate (they know this is false; US doesn't).
Or foreigner intends to enter with no intent to immigrate, but that intent changes after entry when they decide to get married to whoever they're dating. This intent change happens after entry.
> 3. Couple applies for change of status to immigrate → This reveals the foreigner's original intent to immigrate even at the time of entry (the US now knows the entry was fraudulent)
The mere change of status request here proves nothing about any intent at entry.
> I'm not defending the law; I believe it's haphazard and inhumane. Why do you get to apply while together inside the US only if you decided to marry and immigrate after entering the US, but if the foreigner is outside the US at the time you make the decision, you're now locked out for years? But that is what it is, and these people are getting burned trying to skirt the law.
It sounds like this is the part that you're salty about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Detention is literally being used arbitrarily, before the decision is made to even determine the person is an alien. If something is uneccesary its usually being used as punishment. It is not. There has to be a reason to believe the person is an illegal alien. In this article, for example, all detainees presented documentation of their illegal presence and identified themselves with photo ID. >Whats wrong with a cou…
>It is not. There has to be a reason to believe the person is an illegal alien. In this article, for example, all detainees presented documentation of their illegal presence and identified themselves with photo ID. So, give them a court order to board a flight? Like if they are willing to prove their illegal status why is detention needed? >Someone already broke the law and is in the country illegally. What are the r…
You either don't read what I wrote or it does not get through. These people were already given the order to leave the country by a date and they disobeyed it. Now they are in the removal proceedings, which consists of detaining them and transporting them out of the country. Detention is needed because to remove somebody from the country you need to detain them so you could transport them over the border. As I said, we don't have a teleport ray which we could point and make them to disappear and reappear in their home.
>Yeah its a civil matter, so there shouldn't be detention. Great point.
Why there should not be detention? I don't see how it follows. Are you unaware of civil detention/arrest? Can't you just read the Wikipedia or anything other than reddit/twitter before making absurd statements?
>Also, have you considered that the arbitrary detention is the reason someone might refuse to attend?
Attend what? I am sure they have many reasons to stay in my country so what?
>Whoever is sending ICE to detain people raises the case on behalf of the government?
Case of what? Of applying the existing law? "Your Honor, the law tells us to deport these aliens and we are able to do that but, just for shit and giggles, we want you to give them an order to leave and see what happens. Yes, we do respect the law and the court. No, we are not drunk or high. Just do this, please!"
> Just off the top of my head, criminal contempt, due to violation of the court order, would prevent almost any attempt at legal reentry?
And? There literally tens of millions of illegal immigrants who don't care about any of this.
>Invoking reddit is the most reddit thing you can do.
I trust you, I don't use reddit and can only indirectly observe redditors on HN.
>Yeah, but the system is clearly deranged and we are discussing that obvious derangement.
Okay. Here is my argument: the system is not deranged. I win.