Yes you typically need at least 10 years paying into the Social Security to get retirement benefits and to qualify for Medicare.
There are some notable exceptions such as spouses who have been married at least 10 years to someone paying into SS for 10+ years and those that qualify for SS Disability payments but don’t have 10 years SS work history. There may be some other exceptions but I don’t think they are that common.
I disagree.
I think people should be able to come and go, and work (and get paid according to the laws of the state) without fear of getting INS’ed, and pay taxes. But getting citizenship and getting tax refunds and voting rights should require a lot more.
We have a lot of work that lazy American citizens won’t do. Last thing we need is more lazy American citizens.
Maybe we still have all of the old maps from before Obama changed it from Mt McKinley to Denali.
I do wonder… what if the lower 48 name for Denali had been a Democrat POTUS rather than a Republican? Probably Obama still changes it, but Trump might ruffle some feathers trying to change the name to a Democrat. However since McKinley was a Republican it’s easier to paint it as an anti-Republican move by the Dems (which appeared to bother him not one iota during his first term).
And I will note that Alaskans, even white Republican redneck Alaskans, never called it Mt. McKinley. In fact they were almost French-like in their snobbery about it, pretending that they did not understand what you were talking about if you referenced Mt. McKinley. Even when that was technically the correct name.
Yep.
It also begs the question, if a person in the country without legal authorization is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, how can they need legal authorization from the US to be in the US? Sorry, not subject to you, I am a sovereign citizen.
i had to look him up. i don’t think the “republican” party affiliation from the 1840’s was the deciding factor. willing to be wrong.
a better question would be if it was named for washington or jefferson or lincoln before - would it have been changed. or either roosevelt.
I disagree.
I think people should be able to come and go, and work (and get paid according to the laws of the state) without fear of getting INS’ed, and pay taxes. But getting citizenship and getting tax refunds and voting rights should require a lot more.
We have a lot of work that lazy American citizens won’t do. Last thing we need is more lazy American citizens.
1890’s actually
I’m sure Trump sees it more as a white / not-white thing or just a way to make libs cry. But it would be a bit more awkward for him to argue / defend that we particularly needed to rename Denali to be Mt. Wilson or Mt. Cleveland again.
Well to the point of McKinley being a Republican… so was Teddy Roosevelt.
Fun fact: George HW Bush and George W Bush are the only two Presidents to represent both the same family AND the same political party. Had Hillary Clinton won then she and Bill would be the second such pair, but she lost so it’s just the Bush’s. So far.
Yeah, people i know who had actually been there called it Denali decades before the name officially changed. Also, i didn’t know which party McKinley was in, and would have guessed it was one of those old ones that don’t exist anymore. (No, my US history isn’t great.) I really don’t think that was remotely an “anti-Republican” name change. It was an anti-imperialist name change, and i believe that’s what Trump is responding to.
In other news, i hear we are pulling out of the WHO.
I don’t think we should let in absolutely everyone. I think we should exclude most convicted felons and people who are plausibly terrorists or otherwise actively working against the interests of the US. But i do think the other 99% of people who want to come here should be allowed to do so legally, and to work and pay taxes. I’m good with making them wait several years before getting citizenship, or qualifying for most government benefits.
Looking at the demographic trends of the world, i think we should be recruiting young adults to immigrate…
Oh I’m not accusing Obama of changing it for anti-Republican reasons.
I’m saying it would be harder for Trump to justify changing it back if the random guy it was named after had been a prominent Democrat. That would potentially raise questions that are moot since McKinley and Trump are the same party.
That said, McKinley campaigned on inflation, was very pro-tariff and annexed Hawaii, Guam and Puerto Rico, so I guess he and Trump are kind of two peas in a pod. I doubt Trump knows any of that, of course.
In your view, what is the purpose of the United States as a nation.
We landed in Northern Norway on the 20th (Tromso)
The Norwegians and Americans we met at our hotel all had a good laugh over the Gulf of America thing. We watched the news in the lounge.
Nobody thinks it will happen. Just theater to try to overload the Ds and the country with lots of executive orders.
I kind of think its similar to the pareto effect. 80% BS (they don’t care if they get challenged and/or denied) and 20% effective (the ones they really want to sneak through).
I will have to say though that the Americans we met (mostly over 50s) all thought that removing the birthright citizenship was a good thing. General agreement there.
We’re they able to explain why they think it’s a good idea? I haven’t heard a convincing argument yet.
My impression here is that they don’t want lower quality illegal immigrants coming to the US and then having a child (who could then claim citizenship)
My general sense is they don’t like Mexicans (or similar non-white people) doing this sort of thing.
This is a very niche sub-set of people though: over 50, white, generally wealthy and conservative.
I found it interesting because while some were pro-Trump, others despised him (and were quite open about it), they just all agreed on the birthright thing.
Do you mean a nation or a state? A nation is just a loosely defined collection of people who identify with each other on the basis of a shared history and culture, and ours is ill-defined since we’re a giant melting pot of various cultures.
But a state sure, the political entity in which we live that has a geographic border and is recognized by other states in the UN. It has a government that provides things like defense and public services that would otherwise be impractical to manage if they were private.
I don’t think letting in anyone who wants to be part our nation will weaken the state in any way. They just get jobs and then pay taxes which funds the functions of the state. As far as a nation goes it makes it stronger as our big strength is diversity. If you want a nation where you can find someone for any kind of job or knows any kind of language, that’s us.
Man all I see are high quality people coming. That there Darien Gap serves as a natural HR interview question and those people have got strength and stamina. They can build things! And make stuff! And provide services!
I’m just curious because I often have a hard time understanding what the purpose of the United States is and how that translates into public policy. People talk about the “left” in the United States as being for “open borders” but that is actually a Koch brothers policy idea.
That sounds like HRspeak. First of all, how much income is under the table and not taxed. And how exactly does diversity improve things? We are already somewhat diverse, how do we determine if we need more? I’m not saying we don’t have any use for immigrant workers but it needs to be strategic and controlled I think.