Skip to main content

LATEST USA IMMIGRATION NEWS


 I've said it before. My liberal friends think that I'm way too politically conservative and my conservative friends think that I'm a wild-eyed progressive. I must be doing something right.

The latest bone of contention involves immigration. The US Supreme Court has allowed implementation of Trump's plan to require that all prospective immigrants demonstrate that they will not need certain forms of public assistance after entry. For something like 30 years, American immigration rules have forbidden recent immigrants from receiving cash payments. The new rules would include such benefits as SNAP, formerly Food Stamps.

I'm conflicted.

Americans can visit France for up to 90 days without a visa. If we want to stay longer, or want to stay more than 180 days in any one year, we have to apply for a long-stay visa. That application includes proof of medical insurance throughout the stay and the demonstration of sufficient financial resources so as not to become a burden to the French state. Folks like us who intended to become permanent residents had to renew our paperwork annually, providing similar proofs each year.

At the time that we began the process in 2014, we thought nothing of it. It's what the French demanded. We had sufficient income and savings to pass the tests. So, while it was an expensive pain in the ass, we trooped to Beziers every year for five years, presented our paperwork, paid what seemed to us to be an exorbitant amount of money, and so were allowed to stay in France for another year. After five years, perhaps in recognition of nothing more than the persistence of having gone through the process, we were granted a full ten years of residency before our next renewal.

Should we have been upset? I didn't think so and I don't think so. Although the right of free movement exists between the 26 countries that make up the Schengen Area of Europe where passport controls at borders have basically been abolished, the French still think of themselves as special and that living in France is a privilege. There's even a test that you have to take during your interview in order to obtain that multi-year residency card that includes knowledge of the language and understanding of the culture, not dissimilar to the test that you have to take to become an American citizen. The difference is that, having passed the test, you don't become a citizen of France. You just get to live there.

So why should it be any different if you want to live in the USofA? Well, I'll tell you why. The French don't have a statue in the harbor of their major port of entry that has a poem tacked to its pedestal that reads: Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Do you suppose that when Emma Lazarus wrote that poem, she expected that the huddled, wretched refuse would arrive with medical insurance prearranged? Of course not. 

The United Sates was founded on the proposition that taking in refugees from around the world and giving them a chance to add their talents to our American experiment strengthened us. In practice, that concept sometimes meant that those refugees had to travel a rocky road. Irish, Chinese, Jews, and others often learned that the words of Lazarus' poem were more welcoming than the immigrants who preceded them. Because after all, we are all immigrants, all except those who were in North America before the Europeans arrived and those brought to America's shores by force. Their stories are different, of course. Darker.

My point is that the new rules are not in and of themselves egregious in the modern world. It can be argued that the new regulations are merely sensible precautions. But if they are going to be implemented, it will mean that Americans have decided to change who we are, what we want our country to represent. Having held the door open for the better part of four centuries, admittedly with certain caveats, we have to be comfortable with putting up new barriers to admittance to the American dream. 

It's a simple question. Are you OK with changing what America means to itself and to the rest of the world? Because the new regulations don't take us back to some previous, idyllic America. They don't make us great again. Rather, they create a new, smug and self-satisfied America. (Kinda like France!) And that's an America that I don't find particularly appealing.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

GRAND CAFE OCCITAN: RESTAURANT REVIEW

  We made our way to a new restaurant the other day, up toward the hills past La Liviniere in the small town of Felines-Minervois. None of our party had been there before, but a friend had visited and said that she'd enjoyed it. She's a vegetarian. First clue. Now don't get me wrong. I have no gripe with those who choose to go meatless. I understand the environmental concerns and I understand the horrors of factory farming. But I also understand that form follows function in the design of tools, in the design of appliances, and in the design of human teeth. Our incisors and canines did not develop over the course of hundreds of thousands of years to rend the flesh of a fresh-caught broccoli. We are omnivores by design, Darwinian design. And I enjoy eating omni. Enough preamble... I never went inside the Grand Cafe Occitan. A young lady who would be our server met us at the front door of the nicely pointed old stone house, leading us to a pebble-covered courtyard on the side

THINKING OUT LOUD...

GRACE SLICK, BREXIT AGAIN, SELF CHECKOUT, AND MORE: #18

    GRACE SLICK I just listened again to Volunteers , the last Jefferson Airplane album with the 'classic' lineup. 1969. Perfect. Sometimes sloppy. Sometimes over dramatic. But perfect. And Grace Slick. Grace. Slick. Perfect. BREXIT & CONSERVATISM Except for the 30% or so who've drunk the Kool-Aid, can we all agree that Brexit is not working out as advertised? And that the Republican Party in the USofA has sold its soul to a cadre of authoritarians who think they are the true small-d-democrats but who don't want everybody to have a vote and won't abide by a vote that they don't like? How did it happen that, in the name of political conservatism, two countries put into power incompetent leaders financed by greedy elites? And I just read that Michael Gove thinks that Liz Truss is toast because her agenda has been shredded. Whose agenda has been shredded more thoroughly than Gove’s and why would any thinking person be interested in his opinions except to liste