The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

There was, and it lead to the Senate actually passing something but a certain political party killed it because politics but failed to provide an alternative. And before you get into why republicans killed it, my point is that they failed to provide an alternative. That seems to be a pattern. Republicans kill something but never bother to provide an alternative. And when you finally do, it's something so ghastly and inhumane and impractical that it takes an idiotic megalomaniac madman to rally you into action even though he has worked to skirt immigration laws himself.

Exactly what circumstances are you referring to? Perhaps the Republicans didn't propose an alternative because in that situation, the correct response is to do nothing? Sometimes, doing nothing is the best course of action.

[Annoyed]

Actually immigration IS a federal issue.. Hence why when Arizona proposed SB-70, the feds sued saying "OI this is our job"..
But the part many of us are irked about is they don't then do the SAME to states that refuse to follow those rules, and declare themselves 'sanctuary zones'..

Any city or govt. entity that states that it will not enforce existing law ought to be stripped of all state/federal funds, period. You don't want to play by the rules? Fine, go it on your own. But don't expect help.

[Annoyed]

I took that part of Annoyed's comment as
incoming (Syrian/other) refugee=Legal,
Mexican "anchor baby" family=illegal immigrant= plus smuggled Mexicans who entered from some other method (probably related to someone's anchor baby family somewhere, or at least *claimed* to be related, and got a free pass at the time if they were ever even questioned by TPTB authorities).

Refugees automatically do not need to apply for citizenship. At least, from what I understand, not the future ones coming in from the war-torn Middle Eastern regions, such as Syria and Iraq.



Okay. I *was* talking about the "REFUGEEs".
Somehow, it seems the conversations (on all sides here) morphed from refugees, into both "legal and illegal" into Mexican and other illegals. I was following the bread crumbs along the trail, trying not to get sidetracked, in the process.

I got the impression Annoyed seemed to join both the refugees and the illegal immigrant event / situations both in the same paragraph, without putting a dividing line between the two. So, I read the first part as refugee issue, and the latter part as immigration.

Maybe we ALL need to sort each issue out separately by marking--
Refugee issue -- It wouldn't take much for our current USA gov't to say or think -- "Ooooo! empty house! Give it to the new refugees from Syria/overseas..!"

"Anchor baby family citizens"-- Meantime, the former Mexicans who did everything within reason that was right -- under the former "anchor baby" system, except sign up for legal immigration via the Ellis Island way -- those folks just get angry with our world (new system)...

I think this is being debated far more complicated than it really is.

Quite correct. I do tend to lump the illegals / refugees in together. Many illegals will claim refugee status based upon poor economic conditions at home and such. Without hard specifics to allow classification as refugees, where do you draw the line?

Regardless, refugee or immigrant, you must enter via the Ellis Island route. Apply for entry at the front door. Any attempt by either class to come in by the back door, overstay visas, anchor babies and whatnot should result in immediate deportation with no second chance given.

[garhkal]

As I have read the various reports, under current admin and Hillary Clinton's -- the gov't forces the home-owner to either let the refugees live there, or eminent domain property seizures from homeowners might take place. The house is in that sort of area where forced eminent domain processes have occurred. In eminent domain, the homeowner loses, because the gov't pays as little as possible to gain access to the desired property/home. Tuff nookies on the homeowner. If the homeowner agrees to the refugee resettlement in the rental house, and financially gains from it -- the honest way-- great! That's probably one fortunate landlord in a business venture that turned out better than expected.

And if the home owner does 'take them in', and the refugees BREAK the house, who then pays to repair it??

I don't differentiate in how they are here illegally; sneaking in via smuggler truck or overstaying a legitimate visa or permit. The bottom line is they they are here illegally and that is the only thing that matters.

Same here. If they are here illegally, it matters not if they were sneakers across the border, got shipped in via container tank into a port, or flew in legally but overstayed a visa (used a fake visa)..

I don't concede that it is impossible to locate and deport those in this country illegally. It would be a much larger task for us, but I think it could be done. We may not get all of them, but we can get the majority.

And once you cut off the welfare and other benefits, by forcing employers to verify the worker status, fining those who do hire illegals etc, AND we start doing round ups of those we can find, i feel the rest will self deport.

1: They must be self supporting, no public assistance of any kind. They must be working "above the table", paying taxes, paying into the social security system and so forth. Once they've paid into the system for the X time period, they would be eligible for SS for retirement.

Since they have no legal right to work though, how could they be 'working above board' unless using fake, or stolen identities??

2: They must have assimilated themselves to our culture, they must not expect us to change to accommodate their culture. Primarily this means they speak English as we speak it in public settings (I don't care what they speak in the privacy of their own homes) but there are other minor issues as well.

Fully agreed.

3: This is perhaps most important. The laws authorizing this must be written in such a manner that no future modification are possible. We don't want to see the requirements lessened by some future bleeding heart.

Oh hells yea. AND this would imo be ONLY if we secure the damn sieve of a border... NOT as congress had with Reagan where the amnesty came first on the promise the border would get done, then nothing happened.

We would have to have hard, firm and inflexible definitions of what qualifies as a refugee. I would limit it to fear of deliberate physical harm or death by the government or warring factions in their home country. And they don't get to pick and choose which country they flee to. The first "safe" county they get to in their flight is where they go. They can't choose to go to whichever specific country offers the most benefits, for example.

My only issue is how do they PROVE a fear of harm...

Also i would have to add a FULL MEDICAL Screening for any disease that we had considered cured and eliminated in the US. Too many cases are being heard now of this or that disease we had thought we eradicated cropping BAKC UP, all cause of masses of illegals and 'settled refugees' going to X state..

[aretood2]

I took that part of Annoyed's comment as
incoming (Syrian/other) refugee=Legal,
Mexican "anchor baby" family=illegal immigrant= plus smuggled Mexicans who entered from some other method (probably related to someone's anchor baby family somewhere, or at least *claimed* to be related, and got a free pass at the time if they were ever even questioned by TPTB authorities).

Why only Mexicans? And as for that whole "Anchor baby" business (What kind of name is that for a so called "pro-life" Christian?) you'd probably be talking about the Chinese who are actively taking advantage of that. As for other illegals, what do you want them to do? Become sterilized? Shall we fly in some Germans for that? I hear they were really good at it a couple decades ago.

I say this because the way you keep singling out Mexicans is a bit...off putting at best. And the callous disregard for human life and human dignity tends to come hand in hand with people who often complain about illegal immigration. Why adopt their language?

What did I write? I separated the two classifications of persons involved. I was writing about the Mexicans living here under the "anchor baby" (USA) system (to you they are "illegal immigrants"), and those folks end up getting uprooted,
"...deporting them, and expect them to re-enter when their home and everything they've gained since being on USA soil has been confiscated, and their USA home sold or rented out to someone else in the meantime."

There is no anchor baby system. There is no legal recourse for families here illegally who have a child who is a citizen. They too get deported. Their only hope is to wait long enough until their kid is of age (21 years) to maybe get legalized and even then they could still be told to leave the country for X amount of years (up to 10 years is possible). Which is why the Chinese simply fly in, give birth, and go home and wait to start up the paper work on their kid's 21st birthday and then they come in. Or they use their underage kids to expedite the visa process.

Regarding allowing those who have been here X years and have successfully assimilated themselves into our society, I would go along with the idea provided certain criteria were met. All others would be removed by force if necessary, with no exceptions for anchor babies and such.

YOU COMMUNIST!!!! Essentially everything I've argued as a compromise only for you to strike it down by calling it "amnesty".

Your criteria would be a good starting point, no contact with the criminal justice system, and the final reward is a certificate of residency, no voting rights and such as you suggest, but they would at that point be legal residents.
But I would also add the following.
1: They must be self supporting, no public assistance of any kind. They must be working "above the table", paying taxes, paying into the social security system and so forth. Once they've paid into the system for the X time period, they would be eligible for SS for retirement.

Question. If they've been paying into SS all along does that time get factored into the time requirement or must they start all over? If it does get factored in, does it count towards their benefits? And how does it feel to be a lefty?

2: They must have assimilated themselves to our culture, they must not expect us to change to accommodate their culture. Primarily this means they speak English as we speak it in public settings (I don't care what they speak in the privacy of their own homes) but there are other minor issues as well.

In public settings? Why does that matter? What about the rest of us? Does that mean that it will be illegal to speak other languages in public from now on? You can take your little fascist wet dream and shove it while you kindly go to North Korea where that crap can fly. Not to mention it's unconstitutional. Free speech and all.

3: This is perhaps most important. The laws authorizing this must be written in such a manner that no future modification are possible. We don't want to see the requirements lessened by some future bleeding heart.

Is that even possible?

We would have to have hard, firm and inflexible definitions of what qualifies as a refugee. I would limit it to fear of deliberate physical harm or death by the government or warring factions in their home country. And they don't get to pick and choose which country they flee to. The first "safe" county they get to in their flight is where they go. They can't choose to go to whichever specific country offers the most benefits, for example.

So let's Guatemala goes insane. Mexico accepts only so many refugees. Does this qualify Guatemalans for going to the US? Personally, I do feel that a large influx of refugees is a basis for intervening on the behalf of those refugees. That is, the preferable action would be to get the Organization of American States to authorize a US led multi-national force to go into Guatemala and make it safe again for the refugees. But the US certainly didn't mind taking an unlimited number of Cuban refugees. And guess what? No major communist attacks as a result, and Florida seems to be a major destination for retirees.

I think the confusion here is that while Immigration policy and enforcement is a federal matter, as far as I know there is no prohibition against states enforcing federal law, as happened in AZ(maybe other states as well?); the Feds refused to enforce immigration law, so the state took it upon itself to do so. Since the feds had deliberately chosen not to enforce the law, (itself grounds for impeachment in my view) they sued AZ to prevent them from doing so either.

Impeachment could only come about if Congress sues the President for not going after those states and SCOTUS agrees and Obama defy's SCOTUS' order. Kinda like Jackson did, except he wasn't impeached. Speaking of the Trail of Tears...what do you all think about this pipeline and the native Americans?

Exactly what circumstances are you referring to? Perhaps the Republicans didn't propose an alternative because in that situation, the correct response is to do nothing? Sometimes, doing nothing is the best course of action.

For starters, the government shutdown. And you wanted to do it again too. The immigration reform that the Senate passed. I'm still waiting for the alternative. And btw, if maintaining the status quo was the solution, then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

Oh hells yea. AND this would imo be ONLY if we secure the damn sieve of a border... NOT as congress had with Reagan where the amnesty came first on the promise the border would get done, then nothing happened.

Have you ever bothered to watch Reagan's campaign speeches, debates, and read his campaign statements that include the desire for amnesty long before he even got elected as President?

Also i would have to add a FULL MEDICAL Screening for any disease that we had considered cured and eliminated in the US. Too many cases are being heard now of this or that disease we had thought we eradicated cropping BAKC UP, all cause of masses of illegals and 'settled refugees' going to X state..

Most if not all of those diseases you reference are a result of Trump like parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids...But yeah, blindly blame the immigrants. It's the xenophobic thing to do.

[Annoyed]

And once you cut off the welfare and other benefits, by forcing employers to verify the worker status, fining those who do hire illegals etc, AND we start doing round ups of those we can find, i feel the rest will self deport.

Oh hells yea. AND this would imo be ONLY if we secure the damn sieve of a border... NOT as congress had with Reagan where the amnesty came first on the promise the border would get done, then nothing happened.

We got the increased employer verification, reporting and such in 1986 with Reagan's amnesty deal, too. Didn't do us a fat lot of good, did it?

[SGalisa]

And if the home owner does 'take them in', and the refugees BREAK the house, who then pays to repair it??

I'm guessing you mean vandalize it or destroy things in ways that forces repairs to be done?

I think by law, it is the homeowner's responsibility to pay for any damages or repairs that need to be done. Mild translation -- GET a good *Homeowners* insurance plan ahead of time, before anyone moves in. That way, you are protected. However, there are premium limits that the insurance companies will set, so that you end up paying one way or another if a maximum amount of payout (from the insurance company's side) is needed.

For example, look at the flooding in Louisiana. I'm not sure how many of those homes are covered by an excessive amount of flood damage caused by hurricanes, but it's well worth looking into, because renting to refugees or anyone, for that matter, always puts the landlord at risk. Our world never used to be this way, nor was it ever "sue happy". But this is the world we are now living in, and the options homeowners and landlords need to be aware of, lest they get taken advantage of.

As far as changing the Constitution, it CAN be changed. There are two different processes to do so. But the bar has been intentionally been set high. But if enough of the citizens want to change it, it can be amended.
. . .
3: This is perhaps most important. The laws authorizing this must be written in such a manner that no future modification are possible. We don't want to see the requirements lessened by some future bleeding heart.

Oh hells yea. AND this would imo be ONLY if we secure the damn sieve of a border... NOT as congress had with Reagan where the amnesty came first on the promise the border would get done, then nothing happened.

Is that even possible?

I doubt it.
Problem with that line of thought is to believe NOTHING can ever, ever remove such a law.
However, there is such a thing called "REPEAL". If the gov't officials don't like the existing Law and notice that there is that special "NO Modification at all" sort of clause in setting that particular Law into permanent STONE -- It can still be changed.

California (USA) repeals Laws and various regulations all the time. So does the Federal Gov't rules(Laws) and regs. They vanish or vanquish the existing Law by repealing it, and it can be back-dated (??), IIRC, for when the REPEAL goes into effect. Basically then, at the same time and approximate hour, a NEW Law with *desired* changes gets adopted / codified, and can go into effect one minute after the former law was repealed.
e.g., Title X, Part XX, Subpart X, Article Z, at blah,blah stats/Register #vol, was repealed on December 31, 2015 at 11:59PM, and a new Title X, Part XX, Subpart X, Article Z was adopted on January 1, 2016 at 12:00AM.

I'm pretty sure that is how the USA governing system works, short of removing (repealing) the entire Constitution and replacing it with a new Constitution or Sharia Law, for that matter. So, kiss those dreamy wishes of having your desired way to be voted on and established, goodbye. I've been getting the impression to believe that Donald Trump would certainly see the desired amendment put into law, but not sure about just *any* Democrat dealing with it. Chances are, your desired Law goal would be removed and a different one would probably take over. The only chance in that situation to see the undesired Law revoked, would then be to repeal and replace completely.

Repeal, repeal, repeal...and then----REPLACE..! A more sure method than simply amending by adding or removing various words, phrases, sentences or entire paragraphs, etc. ---- Do instead, a *complete* and thorough replacement. Then, there is no question as to where the former rule's wording might stand in the current timeline, other than *deceased to exist any further*.

My only issue is how do they PROVE a fear of harm...

My issue would also include how does vetting *prove* beyond the shadow of every doubt that the "migrant" or refugee isn't pulling some amazing acting talent to appear as if s/he is such a good hearted soul, and cares about doing helpful things for society.
Define "helpful". Then, if its definition is detailed enough, hold that persona to it, before any damages might otherwise happen later. Even by doing that, the agency signing all of the paperwork is taking a risk that the incoming person(s) will behave accordingly to USA Laws and regs standards.

Why only Mexicans? And as for that whole "Anchor baby" business (What kind of name is that for a so called "pro-life" Christian?) you'd probably be talking about the Chinese who are actively taking advantage of that.

I say this because the way you keep singling out Mexicans is a bit...off putting at best. And the callous disregard for human life and human dignity tends to come hand in hand with people who often complain about illegal immigration...

Why mention Mexicans? (not *only* or *solely*, but as an group that just happens to be mentioned within this discussion...)---Because the discussion was primarily about the southern USA border where Mexico is on the other side. It is only *rumor* and hearsay that other nationalities are entering the southern USA border via Mexico. (Also,) There is no other country at our southern USA border, so it is merely natural to mention Mexicans entering at the Mexican/USA border line. ¿Si?

As for "anchor babies" my neighbors said that about their neighbors who had "anchor babies" born in the same hospital my nieces were born at. They had to explain the "anchor baby" bit, because at the time, I had heard the term floating around, but didn't quite understand it, until I met the family who had the USA newborns, plus 1 natural Mexican birthed child.

When it became popular in the news that the USA was having more Mexicans enter illegally into various states and settle down, doing jobs mostly on farms or landscaping (usually lawn-mowing), or whatever that some USA native born adults didn't want to do, our little regional area suddenly blossomed with a whole bunch of Mexicans who came from nowhere.

Even my own sister, who is hours away from me took me on a tour of her town, and pointed out the homes on her former street were now mostly filled with Mexicans (illegal or legal). I was sort of surprised hearing it from her, because tho she did live in a poorer section of her area, there used to be simply many "welfare" folks there -- identities were of mixed ancestral nationalities.

There is no anchor baby system. There is no legal recourse for families here illegally who have a child who is a citizen. They too get deported. Their only hope is to wait long enough until their kid is of age (21 years) to maybe get legalized and even then they could still be told to leave the country for X amount of years (up to 10 years is possible). Which is why the Chinese simply fly in, give birth, and go home and wait to start up the paper work on their kid's 21st birthday and then they come in. Or they use their underage kids to expedite the visa process.

"Anchor Baby" is not a term I came up with. It's been in many news articles for almost an entire decade. And yes, it does apply to any country outside of the USA limits, who's parents enter the USA, have a child here, and then end up with dual citizenship almost automatically -- with China included.

Why only Mexicans?
. . .
Why adopt their language?

Who's adopting their language--Spanish or Spanglish/Mexican accented Spanish, or whatever they choose to speak outside of "por favor habla Inglés"?

Sidenote----I used to have *fun* calling Canada, and had to remember some of that French language class lingo I had in Junior High School. Fortunately, the French speaking official knew enough English to transfer me over to an English speaking person to finish my phone call.

Anyway, I thought almost everyone entering to stay in the USA was supposed to adapt into learning to speak and work with our English language (elderly relatives exempted, due to unwillingness to learn, or some other parent/grandparent language barrier issue). I may understand some Spanish, French, German, some Hebrew, and maybe 4 words in Russian, but I don't speak any of them fluently, nor will I try to. It was bad enough trying to learn English verbs, adverbs, conjunctions, participating particles or whatever else is in those grammar books during the years when I *had* to learn speaking and writing English *properly*.

This is *WHY* I will never-ever be an editor, nor Editor-in-Chief. . . .

[garhkal]

Become sterilized? Shall we fly in some Germans for that? I hear they were really good at it a couple decades ago.

I say this because the way you keep singling out Mexicans is a bit...off putting at best. And the callous disregard for human life and human dignity tends to come hand in hand with people who often complain about illegal immigration. Why adopt their language?

For ME.. It matters not if asian, mexican, russian or MARTIAN!. Give birth and your kid should NOT be automatically considered a US citizen just cause you are in country. AT LEAST one parent should be a US citizen or LEGAL resident for it to count imo.

Question. If they've been paying into SS all along does that time get factored into the time requirement or must they start all over? If it does get factored in, does it count towards their benefits? And how does it feel to be a lefty?

To me, since they only way they could have been working and paying SS taxes is if they were using fake/stolen IDs, then it should NEVER count.

In public settings? Why does that matter? What about the rest of us? Does that mean that it will be illegal to speak other languages in public from now on? You can take your little fascist wet dream and shove it while you kindly go to North Korea where that crap can fly. Not to mention it's unconstitutional. Free speech and all.

Public no. IN business dealings, or when doing governmental stuff (filing for XYZ and so on), imo it SHOULD be english only. Heck as i have mentioned before, there were Several jobs in Texas i tried to get when i was going through retirement, that wouldn't hire me cause i DIDN'T speak Spanish cause they had so many other workers i would have been supervising who DIDN'T speak one lick of english..
Sorry, but IMO That is a sorry ass state of affairs.

Have you ever bothered to watch Reagan's campaign speeches, debates, and read his campaign statements that include the desire for amnesty long before he even got elected as President?

No.. I have though read some of it during schooling..

Most if not all of those diseases you reference are a result of Trump like parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids...But yeah, blindly blame the immigrants. It's the xenophobic thing to do.

Who's being Xenophobic? Were the people who ran Ellis island, who refused entry to those who say had TB, being Xenophobic? NO.. They were just ensuring no one came in with a disease that would spread..
And how do You know its all cause of 'trump like parents'??

We got the increased employer verification, reporting and such in 1986 with Reagan's amnesty deal, too. Didn't do us a fat lot of good, did it?

That's cause its not ENFORCED..

I'm guessing you mean vandalize it or destroy things in ways that forces repairs to be done?

I think by law, it is the homeowner's responsibility to pay for any damages or repairs that need to be done. Mild translation -- GET a good *Homeowners* insurance plan ahead of time, before anyone moves in. That way, you are protected. However, there are premium limits that the insurance companies will set, so that you end up paying one way or another if a maximum amount of payout (from the insurance company's side) is needed.

That IS what i was on about. If they are telling me to give over my house so refugees/illegals can live in it, then it BETTER not be ME paying for it when it inevitably gets damaged by those using it..

My issue would also include how does vetting *prove* beyond the shadow of every doubt that the "migrant" or refugee isn't pulling some amazing acting talent to appear as if s/he is such a good hearted soul, and cares about doing helpful things for society.

And since with Muslims, they have a practice known as Taqiya, which is where the Koran instructs/gives them permission to lie to infidels, how will we even believe what they say??

[Annoyed]

There is no anchor baby system. There is no legal recourse for families here illegally who have a child who is a citizen. They too get deported. Their only hope is to wait long enough until their kid is of age (21 years) to maybe get legalized and even then they could still be told to leave the country for X amount of years (up to 10 years is possible). Which is why the Chinese simply fly in, give birth, and go home and wait to start up the paper work on their kid's 21st birthday and then they come in. Or they use their underage kids to expedite the visa process.

There is no "official" anchor baby system, meaning it's not supposed to work this way, but it does.
Illegals get into the country somehow, have a baby, that baby is a US citizen by being born here, this allows the baby, it's guardians and such to stay in the country, as well as access to social service benefits.
That needs to be stopped.

[Falcon Horus]

What? What countries?

Germany once built its Berlin Wall, to split the country in two - West and East.
Israel builds walls to keep Israeleans in and Palestinians out.
China once built the Great Wall to protect the Empire from hostile invasions.
The Roman Empire built a few walls to keep the Barbarians out, even though they lived beyond the walls and even traded with these Picts.

It wouldn't take much for our current USA gov't to say or think -- "Ooooo! empty house! Give it to the new refugees from Syria/overseas..!"

Nope.

Try the Middle Eastern Islamic controlled countries, China, and maybe Russia for good starters.

Russia never build any walls.
China did build that Great Wall of theirs, to keep the empire safe from hostile invasions -- different time, different situation.

Please, point me to the Middle-Eastern country that build a wall?

Refugees automatically do not need to apply for citizenship. At least, from what I understand, not the future ones coming in from the war-torn Middle Eastern regions, such as Syria and Iraq.

Wrong.

Refugee issue -- It wouldn't take much for our current USA gov't to say or think -- "Ooooo! empty house! Give it to the new refugees from Syria/overseas..!"

Still nope.
I'll explain later.

[COLOR="#800080"]It wouldn't take much for our current USA gov't to say or think -- "Ooooo! empty house! Give it to the new refugees from Syria/overseas..!"

No.

The incoming Syrian refugees would be given permission to take over living at/in the "anchor baby" family's home.. Gov't fully approved there, except maybe under Donald Trump's admin.

No.

As I have read the various reports, under current admin and Hillary Clinton's -- the gov't forces the home-owner to either let the refugees live there, or eminent domain property seizures from homeowners might take place.

Nope.

Quite correct. I do tend to lump the illegals / refugees in together. Many illegals will claim refugee status based upon poor economic conditions at home and such. Without hard specifics to allow classification as refugees, where do you draw the line?

To remind you what a refugee is and to remind you that an economic reason will get you a one-way ticket back home:

* SGAlisa pleaset ake note here too.

Under United States law, a refugee is someone who:

* Is located outside of the United States
* Is of special humanitarian concern to the United States
* Demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group
* Is not firmly resettled in another country
* Is admissible to the United States

A refugee does not include anyone 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.

And if the home owner does 'take them in', and the refugees BREAK the house, who then pays to repair it??

Now, SGAlisa and Garhkal grab yourself a pen and paper and listen up:

YOU ARE BOTH WRONG!!

Thank you for listening.

i'm fairly certain I posted these links before so please do yourself and everyone else a favor and frellin' educate yourself on the matter.

Refugees don't get long-term subsidized housing.

Each refugee receives a stipend of about $1,000 to cover their first three months in the U.S. Before an individual or family arrives, the local resettlement organizations work to find a suitable apartment. They ensure the rent will be affordable and are in charge of distributing the stipend to cover the costs of rent for three months. They are not placed in special apartment blocks and do not receive special rates.

"[The housing] is on the open market. We're trying to rent apartments just like anybody else," says Stacie Blake of the U.S. Committee for Refugee and Immigrants. "There's nothing special or privileged about that."

After three months, refugees are responsible for paying rent as normal tenants in their apartment buildings and are also free to move elsewhere within the city or state or to another state altogether.


Source: 8 Facts About the U.S. Program to Resettle Syrian Refugees

For further study, I also highly reccommend you read the following pages from the State Department:

Refugee Resettlement In The United States
Refugee Council USA
U.S. Refugee Admissions Program

Also i would have to add a FULL MEDICAL Screening for any disease that we had considered cured and eliminated in the US. Too many cases are being heard now of this or that disease we had thought we eradicated cropping BAKC UP, all cause of masses of illegals and 'settled refugees' going to X state..

See, if you had taken the time to inform yourself you would know that medical screenings are a mandatory feature for any of the refugees.

From one of the above links:

Within DHS, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reviews each application and conducts an in-person interview with each applicant. USCIS-approved refugees also undergo a health screening to prevent those with a contagious disease from entering the country.

People who carry TBC for example are treated before they may enter.

In public settings? Why does that matter? What about the rest of us? Does that mean that it will be illegal to speak other languages in public from now on? You can take your little fascist wet dream and shove it while you kindly go to North Korea where that crap can fly. Not to mention it's unconstitutional. Free speech and all.

Kim-Jong Un welcomes all... sort of.

Speaking of the Trail of Tears...what do you all think about this pipeline and the native Americans?

I stand with the Native Americans on this one.

I'm pretty sure that is how the USA governing system works, short of removing (repealing) the entire Constitution and replacing it with a new Constitution or Sharia Law...

Vote Republican, they will install the Christian version for you.

Who's adopting their language--Spanish or Spanglish/Mexican accented Spanish, or whatever they choose to speak outside of "por favor habla Inglés"?

I have to admit that I feel sorry for the American tourists I see, the ones that know no other language than English. Good thing we Flemish are known to adatp to any language.

[Annoyed]

FH, I'm not going to go over it piece by piece.
But to be brief, you can cite all the laws in on the books, but it doesn't mean diddly squat if the government chooses not to follow them, just as the government has chosen not to enforce our immigration laws. How often has the LSoS just done what he wants (or ignored his responsibility to do other things) ?
And nobody will call him on it because of his skin color, for fear of being tagged a racist bigot.

[Falcon Horus]

No, but there's a difference about knowing the laws and spouting some nonsense that makes head nor tails. Discuss the laws, ignore the laws, ... but at least be aware they exist. Knowledge is power.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

So.. What does everyone think of Trump's letter "from his doctor" about his "astonishingly excellent" health?

The letter he absolutely, definitely didn't write himself..

[pookey]

PH wrote it


How much did he pay you?

And should Lazzie worry ?

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

But the letter is full of Trumpisms.

He writes like an eight year old..