Mixed up priorities

[mister_coffee]

I don't think any of my ancestors had a sponsor when they immigrated here. Well, I guess you could argue that the ones that were indentured servants or transported here had sponsors.

[Jingles]

Well tell that to the Romanian family that my relatives had to sponsor, with a place to live, and ensure they were able to support them selves in the early mid 80's.

[pasayten]

We support a school in Haiti and we wanted the Haitian School Director to come to the U.S. to visit... It was a hassle and I had to file proof of financial support documents for him to be considered for a visit. Not sure though how this would relate to actual immigration nowadays.

DHS has announced processes through which nationals of Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and their immediate family members, may request to come to the United States in a safe and orderly way. Qualified beneficiaries who are outside the United States and lack U.S. entry documents may be considered, on a case-by-case basis, for advanced authorization to travel and a temporary period of parole for up to two years for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. To participate, eligible beneficiaries must:

Have a supporter in the United States;
Undergo and clear robust security vetting;
Meet other eligibility criteria; and
Warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.

Individuals participating in these processes must have a supporter in the United States who agrees to provide them with financial support for the duration of their parole in the United States. The first step in the process is for the U.S.-based supporter to file a Form I-134A, Online Request to be a Supporter and Declaration of Financial Support, with USCIS for each beneficiary they seek to support, including minor children. The U.S. government will then review the supporter information provided in the Form I-134A to ensure that they are able to financially support the beneficiaries they are agreeing to support.

[just-jim]

.

Consider this, at one time in the not to distant past immigrants needed a sponsor to immigrate into the US sponsor was responsible for insuring the immigrant had place to live, potential job and resources for being suficient

This is absolutely FALSE bullsh*t. It MAY have been true for a very short time in our history….but was never the pre-dominant bar to immigration.

History major here. I’ve posted this before, I believe:

The idea that anyone’s grandparents, great-grandparents or great great grandparents “came here legally” or the often heard refrain that “…’they’ need to enter the country legally like the rest of us did…” is farcical. And, it is historically inaccurate.

Most of our relatives came to the US without any bar to immigration at all; no quotas, no turn-arounds at the border, no restrictions; there was no Homeland Security in the 1800s. People simply came and entered – many without even being officially recorded - across an open border.

The policy of the US, reflected in it’s various Laws from the late 1800’s onwards, was usually a preference toward (mostly) white, (mostly) Protestant, northern Europeans. It barred or severely limited - variously, according to the particular concern of that time - those that were Catholic (e.g. quotas on Irish and Italians) or Jewish or Slavic (e.g. quotas on Eastern Europeans).

By contrast, immigration from Northern Europe was not controlled by quota until the 1950s. Yes…that’s most of us Protestant, white Anglo-Saxons!

Prior to 1882, there were no controls on immigration from any country, other than for those immigrants with a criminal background or having certain illnesses. That year, Chinese immigrants began to be barred from this country. It wasn’t until 1924 that a quota system began for the Mexican border (where the concern was at least partly for Asians crossing that border). 1924 also saw the beginning of quotas for immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, which were about keeping Jews and Catholic/Italians out.

So, unless your ancestors came –
- AFTER 1882 if they were of Chinese background, or
- AFTER 1924 if they were of Eastern/Southern European or Hispanic background, or
- AFTER 1950 if they were from Western/Northern Europe……

….then they entered freely - based just on a desire to be here - for a wide range of reasons; the EXACT same desire as everyone who wants to be here today.

STOP thinking your relatives passed some magical high bar to become US citizens - they didn’t! They just showed up. Including mine, leaving Canada during a depression there after the US civil war. They arrived in the Lake States; Ohio/Michigan and New England - penniless French speaking Catholics from Quebec – in the late 1860s. They crossed into the US without quotas, tests or other of today’s barriers.

Your ancestors likely did, too. You are not special.
.

[Rideback]

Google AI response:
Do immigrants still need a sponsor?
Who has to have an affidavit of support in order to immigrate? Anyone applying to be a permanent resident through a family member must have a financial sponsor. A sponsor is also required for a family member coming to work for a relative, or for a company in which a relative owns 5 percent or more of the company.

Yes, immigrants need a sponsor in certain circumstances:
Family-based immigration: A U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) must sponsor a relative's immigration. The sponsor must file an I-130 petition and an I-864 Affidavit of Support. The sponsor must also meet minimum income requirements and agree to be financially responsible for the immigrant.
Employment-based immigration: A U.S. employer must sponsor a foreign worker for a visa or green card.
International students: Most work visas require employer sponsorship.
The sponsor's financial responsibility usually ends when the immigrant becomes a U.S. citizen or has 40 qualifying quarters of work under the Social Security Act.
Some things to consider before becoming a sponsor include:
Income requirements
The sponsor must meet minimum income requirements, which are based on the sponsor's household size. If the sponsor doesn't meet the requirements, their assets may be considered.
Legal obligations
The sponsor is entering a legally binding contract. If the sponsor doesn't meet their obligations, the immigrant can sue them.



Refugees are also required to have a sponsor.

[Jingles]

Consider this, at one time in the not to distant past immigrants needed a sponsor to immigrate into the US sponsor was responsible for insuring the immigrant had place to live, potential job and resources for being suficient

[mister_coffee]

Oh yeah,

They continue to be aided by foreign operatives, as well. This morning, on CBS’s Face the Nation, Senate Intelligence Committee member Mark Kelly (D-AZ) warned, on the basis of information he has heard from the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency, that Russia, Iran, and China are generating about 20% to 30% of the political content and comments on social media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf79WJa4lwk

[mister_coffee]

Their brains are too fried to know the difference between people from other countries here legally and people who snuck in illegally.

There is also this concept called "rule of law" and this document called the "constitution". Which means that you can't just strip people of their rights because you decide you do not like them. If I were in a whackjob cult I would be very careful about that because you might be establishing a precedent that would be used against you someday.

Also, under international laws if you deport someone the receiving country has a say in the matter. You can't deport someone that the receiving country doesn't accept. As a bonus you can't deport your own citizens or strip them of their citizenship in most cases either. And you probably can't leave them on the Ross Ice Shelf or something either.

[Rideback]

He never said the money went to the illegals. https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris- ... en-1963998

[dorankj]

Didn’t realize Myorkas was working with Russia and N Korea? You’re such a tool!

[Rideback]

According to the governors of the effected states the Biden admin is doing a 'superb job'. No doubt by the time the costs of Hurricane Milton are added in, and before the election, there will be a need to add more to FEMAs budget but not because the funds have been 'stolen', misdirected or withheld.

It is heartening to see the media, including Fox pushback on the Trump lies. Those that have begun digging into the sources of the lies say that between 20-30% were generated by Russia, Iran and N Korea. Once generated they are weaponized by the Right wing media like Alex Jones and Musk's X platform.

As the Governors are saying in their press conferences, 'knock it off with the conspiracies, you're hurting real people and endangering rescue attempts'

[dorankj]

All those people are just making up the lack of effective response? And Myorkas DIDN’T say the money had been spent on illegals and they need more to handle this? How is Trump responsible for that? So much TDS you’ve lost your mind!

[just-jim]

.
Not surprising at all….I had a vague recollection of Fatso doing just that.
It is straight out of the fascist/totalitarian playbook- accuse the other side of that which you are clearly guilty of doing.
.

[mister_coffee]

This whole misinformation thread has morphed into FEMA money being "stolen" to give to illegal immigrants. Not true at all.

Heather Cox Richardson again has the real story ( https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.c ... ber-4-2024 ):

Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post did not leave the story there. “Trump has a habit of assuming other politicians act in the same way as he would,” Kessler wrote. So he looked into why Trump would have accused Biden “of raiding the FEMA disaster fund to handle undocumented migrants. It turns out that’s because he did this.”

In the middle of hurricane season in 2019, Kessler explains, Trump took $155 million from the FEMA disaster fund and redirected it to pay for detention space and temporary hearing locations for immigrants seeking asylum. “No, Biden didn’t take FEMA relief money to use on migrants,” the article title reads, “but Trump did.”

[mister_coffee]

...
Maybe someone should tell them they should help the legal citizens before giving ANYTHING to the illegals

Not all immigrants are here illegally.

[Jingles]

Would seem this Administration has their priorities a little mixed up

https://youtu.be/7naLFvWjmME?si=QNQSRQm5r-UHlEsB

"Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA): The bill provides $20.261 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund in fiscal year 2024. It also provides $3.5 billion for grants and training to state, local, Tribal, and territorial entities to help communities prepare for, respond to, and recover from both manmade and natural threats, including hurricanes, terrorist attacks, wildfires, and more."

"In April of this year, FEMA announced $640 million in new funding, $300 million for “direct funding” to help immigrants settle in the U.S. while the other $340 million went to cities via grants for the same purpose."

Maybe someone should tell them they should help the legal citizens before giving ANYTHING to the illegals