Chatter And Banter - Politics In North America

That is not a complete transcript. It is a doctored reproduction favoring Trump's narrative. They even added a disclaimer that it wasn't verbatim. Prepared by 'voice recognition software and note-takers' apparently. All this so they have deniability if the complete conversation ever sees the light of day. They have audio but of course they will never release that. The NYT is calling it a call record now, instead of a transcript. Despite their shenanigans the version released is pretty damning. And this was one call. The way he starts off talking about Biden without any preamble means this had been discussed before. There were dozens of calls. The democrats need to start digging up those.

 

Funniest thing I've read today: The Ukranian president has been christened Monica Zelensky by his media.

Ukraine’s president is being dubbed “Monica Zelensky” at home

 

The H4 EAD kind of things make the h1 program even more disliked by those who oppose it. The decades long backlog of EB2, EB3 categories is not fair, not right, and something that needs fixing. But, spouses of H1 being able to work in any job after the H1's I140 is approved is not fair to American workers competing for the same jobs.

The H4 spouse is able to work at any job while the H1 person has to be in a "job of similar category" till I485 gets approved or something like that. Whenever the petitions to gather signatures come out, I look for good arguments in favor of the H4 EAD rule. All I find are "stressful to not work, leads to mental issues, waste of intellect, can contribute to society." I do not find a reason that justifies the H4 EAD folks getting to work in jobs that do not have a scarcity of American workers.

Based on my dated and limited knowledge, the H4 EAD gives the H4 person the freedom to work in any job which is a freedom the H1 person gets only after GC. A person who does not have a GC being able to work in any job that does not have a scarcity of American workers is sure to rile up the H1 opposition.

 

If a person benefits from a weak law or loopholes, does that disqualify him from ever speaking out about that law's weakness or the negative impact of those loopholes?

 

For quite some weeks after November 8, 2016, I avidly followed Canadian immigration websites including moving2canada.com : )

Canada modified its rules in April 2018 for immigration of people with mental or physical disabilities.

The changes include:

• increasing the cost threshold for medical inadmissibility to three times the previous level; and
• amending the definition of social services by removing references to special education, social and vocational rehabilitation services and personal support services.

Before this change, the cost threshold for a medical demand to be considered excessive was $6,655 CAD per year, or $33,275 over five years. With the threshold now increased three-fold, the revised threshold would be $19,965 per year.​

Is this fair enough? Or, does this change not help much?

It is a tough situation. Each side has to do what they need to do. Imagine having to tell someone that they qualify to be #72 in a waiting-for-transplant list and not #29. Will we understand why they have that number system or will we go "What kind of people do that?"

It is not totally right that a qualified and employable person is denied immigration based on a child who will burden the system more than a certain limit, but some rules have to be in place, no? Any country's immigration rules have "high possibility of becoming a public charge" as grounds for immigration petition rejection.

I saw posts in avvo.com and other websites where people plainly ask, "Can I get Canadian/other immigration based on my child's disability?" We cannot blame them for trying and we cannot blame the govt's immigration rules to circumvent some of such cases.

A local family (30-something with one toddler and two dogs) wrapped up and moved to Australia within a month. I believe they can get Australian citizenship in 4-6 years, and come back to the U.S. when child is 7-8 years.

Didn't get this. Why would they pay international fees? Wouldn't they qualify for in-state tuition after having studied high school in the state?