ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,363
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Mar 2, 2024 12:47:43 GMT -5
this is from the article. rip- you repeated it nearly verbatim: 'Illegal aliens' is the legal term to describe individuals who do not immigrate through legal and official channels into the U.S. i don't suppose you have bothered to look up the term in the dictionary, have you? if you did, you would find this: a foreign national who is living without official authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen.a person who is seeking asylum is not "living" in the US, any more than a tourist is. this is where you, scgal , and many others make your error. if i travel to Spain and overstay my visa, i am an "illegal alien", unless i am seeking asylum, or applying for PR status. the latter portion of that remark is extremely important. you can't call me illegal if i am doing my best to maintain my legal status. you can ONLY do that if i am not. you are basically declaring migrants scoffaws without knowing whether they are earnestly seeking legal status or not. that is the problem with your "illegal" description. so, the Daily Mail basically lied about the definition, and you repeated that lie. and that's ok. we are used to it. Rip I believe was the poster who used the website site Media Bias/Fact Check to prove some point of his. So I have been using Media Bias/Fact Check to look at some of Rip's sourced sites. This is what Media Bias/Fact Check has on The Daily Mail: Questionable Reasoning: Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Some Fake News, Numerous Failed Fact Checks Bias Rating: RIGHT Factual Reporting: LOW Country: United Kingdom MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Newspaper Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY Media Bias/Fact Check: The Daily Mail How do we know that this Media Bias company is not biased themselves? Who is watching the watchers? Whats their leaning? I'm sure they claim neutrality but are they really? They get money from advertisers. Are they left, right or center?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 2, 2024 12:52:42 GMT -5
Rip I believe was the poster who used the website site Media Bias/Fact Check to prove some point of his. So I have been using Media Bias/Fact Check to look at some of Rip's sourced sites. This is what Media Bias/Fact Check has on The Daily Mail: Questionable Reasoning: Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Some Fake News, Numerous Failed Fact Checks Bias Rating: RIGHT Factual Reporting: LOW Country: United Kingdom MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Newspaper Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY Media Bias/Fact Check: The Daily Mail How do we know that this Media Bias company is not biased themselves? Who is watching the watchers? Whats their leaning? I'm sure they claim neutrality but are they really? They get money from advertisers. Are they left, right or center? LOL-I bet you didn't read the first part of my post you quoted. You should have thought about that (Media Bias/Fact Check possibly being biased themselves) when you were the first poster to use Media Bias/Fact Check to trash someone's source in the first place. You can use Media Bias/Fact Check as truth but the rest of us cannot because it might be biased. How very typical of you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2024 15:31:50 GMT -5
once they are on an asylum track, they are here by permission of the US government awaiting a hearing. that is actually a legal track. but again, the definition of "illegal alien" is a person who is living here as if he or she is a citizen without any intention of becoming a citizen. is that how you would describe asylum seekers? You give 2 different definitions. The one you gave to rip was without mentioning the intention of becoming a citizen. Which is it? the one i gave rip is more accurate, because a person can be a permanent resident, and not a citizen. in fact, a person can be here on visa every year without being EITHER a citizen or resident. the key to the meaning of that term is a person's intentions. if a person intends to fly under the radar indefinitely, then they can rightly be regarded as "illegal". if not, then they are "other". the problem in discussing the millions that enter this country every year is that neither you NOR i have any idea what their intentions are. so there is considerable uncertainty in the discussion. liberals like me are pretty comfortable with uncertainty. conservatives, not so much. i find that MANY discussions on this board boil down to that simple truth.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2024 15:34:22 GMT -5
Rip I believe was the poster who used the website site Media Bias/Fact Check to prove some point of his. So I have been using Media Bias/Fact Check to look at some of Rip's sourced sites. This is what Media Bias/Fact Check has on The Daily Mail: Questionable Reasoning: Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Some Fake News, Numerous Failed Fact Checks Bias Rating: RIGHT Factual Reporting: LOW Country: United Kingdom MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Newspaper Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY Media Bias/Fact Check: The Daily Mail How do we know that this Media Bias company is not biased themselves? Who is watching the watchers? Whats their leaning? I'm sure they claim neutrality but are they really? They get money from advertisers. Are they left, right or center? apart that it is obvious by anyone who reads multiple sources of media, these views are widely shared by people left, right, and center. i get that the standard practice on the right is to widen the conspiracy to fold in the critique, but it really won't play here.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2024 15:55:56 GMT -5
we should get back to the ACTUAL definition of "illegal alien" if we want to continue debating it:
a foreign national who is living without official authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen.
so there are two parts here. one is without official authorization. the non-citizen part EVERYONE HERE accepts.
let's focus on the official authorization. here are the ways to obtain official authorization:
1) travel visa 2) work visa 3) refugee/asylum 4) residency and/or path to citizenship 5) extradition (for criminal prosecution IN the US or territories)
does anyone disagree that these last four are NOT part of "official authorization"?
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,738
|
Post by chiver78 on Mar 2, 2024 16:13:42 GMT -5
we should get back to the ACTUAL definition of "illegal alien" if we want to continue debating it: a foreign national who is living without official authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen.so there are two parts here. one is without official authorization. the non-citizen part EVERYONE HERE accepts. let's focus on the official authorization. here are the ways to obtain official authorization: 1) travel visa 2) work visa 3) refugee/asylum 4) residency and/or path to citizenship 5) extradition (for criminal prosecution IN the US or territories) does anyone disagree that these last four are NOT part of "official authorization"? you forgot Green Card, which my dad still carries. he haa zero intent to become a citizen, either. otherwise, yes.
|
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,363
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Mar 2, 2024 21:29:02 GMT -5
we should get back to the ACTUAL definition of "illegal alien" if we want to continue debating it: a foreign national who is living without official authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen.so there are two parts here. one is without official authorization. the non-citizen part EVERYONE HERE accepts. let's focus on the official authorization. here are the ways to obtain official authorization: 1) travel visa 2) work visa 3) refugee/asylum 4) residency and/or path to citizenship 5) extradition (for criminal prosecution IN the US or territories) does anyone disagree that these last four are NOT part of "official authorization"? No disagreement here on these. Provided 1. The person when the travel visa expires goes back home. 2. The work visa is current so we know where they are 3. Refugee/asylum as long as they are 100% vetted and apply for citizenship 4. They have made the effort to become citizens
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,738
|
Post by chiver78 on Mar 3, 2024 7:25:28 GMT -5
we should get back to the ACTUAL definition of "illegal alien" if we want to continue debating it: a foreign national who is living without official authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen.so there are two parts here. one is without official authorization. the non-citizen part EVERYONE HERE accepts. let's focus on the official authorization. here are the ways to obtain official authorization: 1) travel visa 2) work visa 3) refugee/asylum 4) residency and/or path to citizenship 5) extradition (for criminal prosecution IN the US or territories) does anyone disagree that these last four are NOT part of "official authorization"? No disagreement here on these. Provided 1. The person when the travel visa expires goes back home. 2. The work visa is current so we know where they are 3. Refugee/asylum as long as they are 100% vetted and apply for citizenship 4. They have made the effort to become citizens
ok, I'll bite. how about those in #4 who have been here for years and never became citizens? still legal Green Card holders? just curious.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 3, 2024 12:17:48 GMT -5
we should get back to the ACTUAL definition of "illegal alien" if we want to continue debating it: a foreign national who is living without official authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen.so there are two parts here. one is without official authorization. the non-citizen part EVERYONE HERE accepts. let's focus on the official authorization. here are the ways to obtain official authorization: 1) travel visa 2) work visa 3) refugee/asylum 4) residency and/or path to citizenship 5) extradition (for criminal prosecution IN the US or territories) does anyone disagree that these last four are NOT part of "official authorization"? No disagreement here on these. Provided 1. The person when the travel visa expires goes back home. 2. The work visa is current so we know where they are 3. Refugee/asylum as long as they are 100% vetted and apply for citizenship 4. They have made the effort to become citizens
you can't vet someone 100%. you can't even vet a US citizen 100%. how about "background checking international databases", and "verifying identity". isn't that enough? this is another problem with the conservative approach. if applied, it would have kept many of their ancestors out. do you understand why that is an issue for any thoughtful person?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 3, 2024 12:37:36 GMT -5
by the way- i don't know where YOU are, rip. and it would be pretty difficult to find out. you don't know where i am, and i LIKE IT THAT WAY.
i don't want the government, you, or anyone else that is not on my "privileged list" to know where i am. that is one of the things i LIKE about this country. if you are going to take that away from me, i would rather live somewhere else.
it is a big selling point of living here or Europe.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 3, 2024 12:49:09 GMT -5
something is starting to emerge from this discussion.
that many in this country would like standards applied to others that they are unwilling to have applied to themselves.
that doesn't apply to me, but that is impacting my argument (my unwillingness to be a hypocrite). if someone is here legally, i don't feel any need to know where they are, unless the state has ORDERED that for some reason. and to be clear, those reasons should be very justified. hell, we don't even know where parolees are, 99% of the time. we ONLY know when they report to their parole officer.
this business of having to know a persons whereabouts, employment, sexual relations, fertility status, religion, etc is exactly what most liberals and the majority of the planet HATE about government. is that the kind of country we want to live in? i don't think so.
this is just one example, btw. i have seen some others, but i would have to think about it for a while.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 3, 2024 13:04:52 GMT -5
something is starting to emerge from this discussion. that many in this country would like standards applied to others that they are unwilling to have applied to themselves. that doesn't apply to me, but that is impacting my argument (my unwillingness to be a hypocrite). if someone is here legally, i don't feel any need to know where they are, unless the state has ORDERED that for some reason. and to be clear, those reasons should be very justified. hell, we don't even know where parolees are, 99% of the time. we ONLY know when they report to their parole officer. this business of having to know a persons whereabouts, employment, sexual relations, fertility status, religion, etc is exactly what most liberals and the majority of the planet HATE about government. is that the kind of country we want to live in? i don't think so. this is just one example, btw. i have seen some others, but i would have to think about it for a while. Rip and others of his ilk would like all people in the United States to carry around identity cards so authorities can tell the good from the bad. Just like Nazi Germany did. For Example: the card below carries a tan mark in it. The tan mark states Jew. And we know from history what happened to the Jews during WWII.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 3, 2024 13:07:27 GMT -5
the other more recent recipient of this treatment was Black South Africa. i learned a lot about that issue when i was studying in London in 1986. i found it sickening. here is the woman i was thinking of: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Sorokinthis is how i see Trump, with two exceptions: 1) he has major inherited wealth, so that part is NOT a fraud. although how he obtained it IS, to some degree. 2) he has been grifting his entire life. Anna only got away with it for four years. who is worse?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 3, 2024 13:09:14 GMT -5
yeah, that is the thing about the government knowing where you are. it makes it easier for them to herd you into stadiums and shoot you from the bleachers.
nein, danke
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 3, 2024 13:14:01 GMT -5
spoiler: i have more sympathy for Anna. she was far more enterprising in her grift. she started out with very little, and lived large for four years. that is something of an accomplishment.
what did Trump accomplish?, other than arguably being the greatest grifter of all time, including grifting an election, and nearly grifting a second one. that will be his legacy, imo. he will be infamous for that. if Madoff or Ken Lay had declared themselves president for life, he would have some competition. Harding is a very distant second, and seems downright presidential in hindsight compared to Trump.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Mar 3, 2024 15:55:50 GMT -5
we should get back to the ACTUAL definition of "illegal alien" if we want to continue debating it: a foreign national who is living without official authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen.so there are two parts here. one is without official authorization. the non-citizen part EVERYONE HERE accepts. let's focus on the official authorization. here are the ways to obtain official authorization: 1) travel visa 2) work visa 3) refugee/asylum 4) residency and/or path to citizenship 5) extradition (for criminal prosecution IN the US or territories) does anyone disagree that these last four are NOT part of "official authorization"? No disagreement here on these. Provided 1. The person when the travel visa expires goes back home. 2. The work visa is current so we know where they are 3. Refugee/asylum as long as they are 100% vetted and apply for citizenship 4. They have made the effort to become citizens
Those people on work visas are in the system. Believe me, if they are on a work visa their employer and the government knows exactly where they are and the minute that they leave their job, unless there is another company sponsoring their work visa, they had better have a plane ticket home. In my experience, a coworker had 30 days to dismantle his life and leave. Not everyone WANTS to be a citizen, for a multitude of reasons. I think the last item on your list is bunk. There are US citizens who are living in countries LEGALLY all over the world (in fact, we are visiting one of TD's old coworkers who retired in Thailand later this month). So why should we expect citizenship of people when so many US citizens choose to make their home elsewhere? Secondly, some people cannot become dual citizens without relinquishing their citizenship in their home country, and sometimes this is impossible. Thirdly, getting citizenship in the US is freaking expensive. Not many people have thousands of $$ to pay for the hoops you need to jump through to become citizens. I know one many who is doing this for his wife. So far, he's got nearly $10K invested.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 4, 2024 15:01:22 GMT -5
No disagreement here on these. Provided 1. The person when the travel visa expires goes back home. 2. The work visa is current so we know where they are 3. Refugee/asylum as long as they are 100% vetted and apply for citizenship 4. They have made the effort to become citizens
Those people on work visas are in the system. Believe me, if they are on a work visa their employer and the government knows exactly where they are and the minute that they leave their job, unless there is another company sponsoring their work visa, they had better have a plane ticket home. In my experience, a coworker had 30 days to dismantle his life and leave. Not everyone WANTS to be a citizen, for a multitude of reasons. I think the last item on your list is bunk. There are US citizens who are living in countries LEGALLY all over the world (in fact, we are visiting one of TD's old coworkers who retired in Thailand later this month). So why should we expect citizenship of people when so many US citizens choose to make their home elsewhere? Secondly, some people cannot become dual citizens without relinquishing their citizenship in their home country, and sometimes this is impossible. Thirdly, getting citizenship in the US is freaking expensive. Not many people have thousands of $$ to pay for the hoops you need to jump through to become citizens. I know one many who is doing this for his wife. So far, he's got nearly $10K invested. one of the main reasons, and i have brought this up before, is the "home tax rule". the US is one of two nations on Earth that follow you around from cradle to grave taxing you if you have the "fortune" to be born here. i STRONGLY considered renouncing my citizenship because of that. but although it would be an ECONOMIC advantage to me, it turns out that our passport is just way too powerful. the only other passport that would merit renouncing would be an Shenzhen passport. the point for me is not the tax rate. the tax rate is low here. it is that i fervently disagree with our spending priorities. it is like living with a crack addict- but in this case, our crack is the military. we spend at least 2x, perhaps 3x what we should on crack. if we could manage our habit a bit better, and "reallocate" those resources to child poverty and balancing the budget, i would not have ANY thoughts of renouncing. of course these are "first world" considerations. a Venezuelan refugee is just looking to survive. nothing more or less.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 4, 2024 15:04:05 GMT -5
gang- Mich's post on this subject is one of the most thoughtful i have seen. lots of important detail in there, so i suggest carefully reading and researching that post. as far as i can gather, it is 100% true. post of the year!!!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 4, 2024 15:06:33 GMT -5
rip- i would really like you to respond to my post: why is it NOT ok for them to just pass a background check and verify their identity to clear themselves into the asylum track?
i DO agree with Mich, though. many have no desire to become citizens, and we should have the latitude to allow for that, as it is more cost effective for the US to have them as PR's or on work visa. so item#5 is just kinda goofy, as far as i am concerned.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Mar 4, 2024 15:06:37 GMT -5
Those people on work visas are in the system. Believe me, if they are on a work visa their employer and the government knows exactly where they are and the minute that they leave their job, unless there is another company sponsoring their work visa, they had better have a plane ticket home. In my experience, a coworker had 30 days to dismantle his life and leave. Not everyone WANTS to be a citizen, for a multitude of reasons. I think the last item on your list is bunk. There are US citizens who are living in countries LEGALLY all over the world (in fact, we are visiting one of TD's old coworkers who retired in Thailand later this month). So why should we expect citizenship of people when so many US citizens choose to make their home elsewhere? Secondly, some people cannot become dual citizens without relinquishing their citizenship in their home country, and sometimes this is impossible. Thirdly, getting citizenship in the US is freaking expensive. Not many people have thousands of $$ to pay for the hoops you need to jump through to become citizens. I know one many who is doing this for his wife. So far, he's got nearly $10K invested. one of the main reasons, and i have brought this up before, is the "home tax rule". the US is one of two nations on Earth that follow you around from cradle to grave taxing you if you have the "fortune" to be born here. i STRONGLY considered renouncing my citizenship because of that. but although it would be an ECONOMIC advantage to me, it turns out that our passport is just way too powerful. the only other passport that would merit renouncing would be an Shenzhen passport. the point for me is not the tax rate. the tax rate is low here. it is that i fervently disagree with our spending priorities. it is like living with a crack addict- but in this case, our crack is the military. we spend at least 2x, perhaps 3x what we should on crack. if we could manage our habit a bit better, and "reallocate" those resources to child poverty and balancing the budget, i would not have ANY thoughts of renouncing. of course these are "first world" considerations. a Venezuelan refugee is just looking to survive. nothing more or less. I just read that the US passport is #8 in the world. TBH, I don't remember what countries came ahead of us, but they ranked the passports by how many countries you could visit without a visa. I found the article. www.euronews.com/travel/2023/07/20/worlds-most-powerful-passport-germany-italy-and-spain-move-up-into-second-place#:~:text=Singapore%20has%20taken%20first%20place,free%20access%20to%20190%20destinations.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Mar 4, 2024 15:17:58 GMT -5
rip- i would really like you to respond to my post: why is it NOT ok for them to just pass a background check and verify their identity to clear themselves into the asylum track? i DO agree with Mich, though. many have no desire to become citizens, and we should have the latitude to allow for that, as it is more cost effective for the US to have them as PR's or on work visa. so item#5 is just kinda goofy, as far as i am concerned. I have worked with hundreds of nationals over the 30+ years I was in research. The universities I worked at had offices that were solely involved in keeping the nationals legal. Imagine, having a single office only for making sure your employees are eligible to work. However, the US government is fickle, and my coworker had to drag his 2 daughters out of school, sell his car, unload his apartment and move back to India when a snafu in his visa gave him 30 days to leave the country. It took him over a year to straighten out his visa situation, but that year was in India. We have seriously considered leaving the US and becoming ex-pats like TD's old coworker. Our short list included South Africa (too unstable), Turkey (also unstable), Portugal (still a contender). Even though Canada is a possibility due to TD's dual citizenship, he has no interest in going back. Interestingly enough, I have the possibility of getting an Irish passport as my grandmother was born in Ireland. An Irish passport gives us most of Europe as an option. I need to track down my dad's birth certificate, as that would show his mother and we have records showing my grandmother was born in Ireland. Then I have my birth certificate showing who my dad's mom was. Me being a dual citizenship does open up possibilities.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,738
|
Post by chiver78 on Mar 4, 2024 15:22:16 GMT -5
thanks for that link, Mich. I was especially intrigued by the last section -
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 4, 2024 15:24:43 GMT -5
i highly recommend dual citizenship to anyone, with the neo-fascist GOP attempting to assert control. things could be made very difficult for US citizens who are NOT part of the GOP. i mean that. this is the party of petty vindictiveness. i would not be surprised to be denied a building permit or had my taxes audited, for example, if Trump were re-elected. NOT AT ALL. i have been outspoken, both here, at work, and publicly against that administration. i have no doubt whatsoever that i would be targeted for retribution. it is not that Trump is an asshole. everyone knows that. it is that he feels compelled to step on people who get in his way. do i fear him? no. i don't. but i am a dual citizen. i have nothing to fear any longer. i could walk away from everything, here. i STRONGLY ENCOURAGE anyone on this board to be similarly safeguarded.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,738
|
Post by chiver78 on Mar 4, 2024 15:28:51 GMT -5
I'll echo dj, there. I'm so happy I went through the process to validate my Canadian citizenship before I aged out of the opportunity to do so. I have zero qualms about moving north if need be. I'll admit, I'd be better suited to the weather in the Vancouver area than anywhere else in Canada, but it's an option if need be.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 4, 2024 15:35:22 GMT -5
it may seem goofy and paranoid to some, and "anti-American" to others to be having this discussion, but i can assure you it is neither. if Trump is elected, this is no longer the America i signed up for. so, it is actually not anti-American to NOT want to be part of that. and to the first point, i am sort of naturally conservative, and always have a plan B. expatriating became a plan A many years ago for me. plan B has always been staying here in the US. but i am NOW looking at OTHER PLAN B's. there are some really good ones out there. probably the most cost effective one for most Americans would be Costa Rica, where the national healthcare system costs about $100/month for non-citizens. you read that right. you could have a live-in nurse for less than it costs you to go to the hospital a few times a year in the US. it is absurd to NOT consider it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 4, 2024 15:38:21 GMT -5
i will add this for maybe the 10th time: my family has been here for 10 generations (counting my son). our blood was spent for this country- particularly in the Civil War. i love the basic underpinning of the US: the constitution and the rule of law. if y'alls are going to toss that out, i am done with you, though. there are OTHER countries that rate VERY HIGH on the political, social, and economic freedom spectrum. Canada is a top 10 country, for example, and for most of us, they are less than a day's drive away. perhaps you can apply for refugee status. assuming their border is "open".
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,738
|
Post by chiver78 on Mar 4, 2024 16:13:03 GMT -5
dj, you've been talking about Costa Rica as long as I can remember. long enough that I remember being surprised to see you posting about your European outpost instead. lol....
I will say this, though, in the vein of the memes out there chiding the GOP that The Handmaid's Tale was fiction and not a guide map.... as a middle class single, childless woman in my 40s, I'm out of here at the hint of anything resembling what went on in that book. I'm in the process of looking at moving my savings to international banks, including retirement accounts. I can stand to lose what's in the "operating account" if need be.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Mar 4, 2024 17:06:58 GMT -5
thanks for that link, Mich. I was especially intrigued by the last section - This will be changing in 2025 for US citizens. I am wondering what the EITAS is going to do, as it's essentially a visa that US citizens are going to need to apply for to visit any Schengen area. That's most of Europe and some additional countries.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,738
|
Post by chiver78 on Mar 4, 2024 17:12:13 GMT -5
thanks for that link, Mich. I was especially intrigued by the last section - This will be changing in 2025 for US citizens. I am wondering what the EITAS is going to do, as it's essentially a visa that US citizens are going to need to apply for to visit any Schengen area. That's most of Europe and some additional countries. I noticed that when I saw your first post about EITAS. depending on flexibility on how I book things, if my layover is in Canada, it might not be an issue for me. just need to figure out that detail. ask me another day about clearing Customs in Munich awhile back, on a snazzy new Canadian passport that didn't have an intake stamp b/c neither Frankfurt (EU landing) nor Bologna (final destination) offered an intake stamp.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Mar 4, 2024 17:14:17 GMT -5
it may seem goofy and paranoid to some, and "anti-American" to others to be having this discussion, but i can assure you it is neither. if Trump is elected, this is no longer the America i signed up for. so, it is actually not anti-American to NOT want to be part of that. and to the first point, i am sort of naturally conservative, and always have a plan B. expatriating became a plan A many years ago for me. plan B has always been staying here in the US. but i am NOW looking at OTHER PLAN B's. there are some really good ones out there. probably the most cost effective one for most Americans would be Costa Rica, where the national healthcare system costs about $100/month for non-citizens. you read that right. you could have a live-in nurse for less than it costs you to go to the hospital a few times a year in the US. it is absurd to NOT consider it. You are not paranoid. I feel the same way. Trump and his ilk scare the crap out of me, and if he gets back into power, what he has hinted he will do should scare everyone. The Supreme Court make up has just marked paid to it too. They're not willing to rein him in and support the Constitution. I can't deny that we have not considered emigrating elsewhere. Many countries require you to put so much $$ into their country, and luckily we can. Costa Rica is just too flipping hot for us though. TD likes the warm weather to dive, but anything else? Forget about it.
|
|