Why is the White House Hiding the Immigration Status of Melania's Parents?

[Doctor Amadeus]

You are using the lives of two actual people for political point scoring. You are as bad as Trump, you just haven’t cottoned on to that yet.

When you lose the moral high ground to Trump, you’ve fucked up.

- - - Updated - - -



These are two named individuals, their personal status is being used as a political football for partisan reasons. That is not acceptable politics, that is throwing innocent people under the bus for an ideology, it’s shameful behaviour.

Again you have no credibility here, and this is Trump for him there are no hands off targets and this goes right at the heart of the issue even if you don't like it. There are millions of people affected by this buffoons idiotic position on immigration.

[Machismo]

First of all, I hate defending Trump because he is an absolute man-child. With that being said, he has never had an anti-immigration rhetoric. He has always been pro-immigration, against illegal immigration. Based on our immigration laws, I would say it is far more likely that her parents are legal though, and there probably isn't too much in this story (ex. family members over the age of 55 do not need to speak a single word of English to gain citizenship).

Honestly, I wouldn't read too much into this one. There is plenty to get upset about with the Trump administration, and I would focus more on that (like Trumps Twitter potty mouth).

He literally asked why we want people coming here from shithole countries. He restricted immigration from multiple countries. He pushed to greatly restrict certain visa applications.

He has literally called to end the type of immigration that has Melania's parents in the country. That's blatant hypocrisy on his part.

also, saying someone is pro legal immigration doesn't mean a lot. It's what they want to be legal that is the real issue, and Trump has consistently pushed for more restrictions. That's like saying California politicians are in favor of gun ownership, just not illegal gun ownership.

[igualitarist]

Tip: being against illegal immigration is not the same as being against immigration or immigrants.

[Endus]

You are using the lives of two actual people for political point scoring. You are as bad as Trump, you just haven’t cottoned on to that yet.

When you lose the moral high ground to Trump, you’ve fucked up.

Except that nobody here is actually arguing that Melania's parents shouldn't be in the USA.

They're highlighting the hypocrisy in Trump's stance. That is what this is about, and your repeated attempts to derail and mislead aren't fooling anyone.

[Rakoth]

Trump is against ILLEGAL immigration.. that author needs to do some fact checking.. afaik his wife came here legally so no hypocrisy on his part. And, what does the first lady's parents have to do with the president?

There is credence to the fact that she was actually illegally working under a visitor's visa, which is a federal crime. The hypocrisy pointed out isn't his stance on illegal immigrants, it's his stance on CHAINED immigration, which his own family has benefited from. (Besides the whole hypocrisy around him knowingly using illegal immigrant labor in the past https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/n...ettlement.html).

[igualitarist]

Could someone clarify to me why being against to the type of immigration that brought the parents of Melania to America is hypocrisy ?

I mean, he wasn't in charge back then. So what did you guys wanted him to do ? To be a complete intolerant and to cut ties with everyone that benefited from it ?

Really ? Trump should no be married with Melania because he is against the immigration system that brought her parents to USA ?

If i am not getting it wrong, you guys are pathetic.

[Rakoth]

Could someone clarify to me why being against to the type of immigration that brought the parents of Melania to America is hypocrisy ?

I mean, he wasn't in charge back then. So what did you guys wanted him to do ? To be a complete intolerant and to cut ties with everyone that benefited from it ?

Really ? Trump should no be married with Melania because he is against the immigration system that brought her parents to USA ?

If i am not getting it wrong, you guys are pathetic.

To boil it down to something you might understand that was already mentioned here: This is like an anti-gay preacher being found in bed with his boyfriend.

Would you ever lend any weight to the preacher's opinions after that? He would have lost all credibility.

What we are getting at is: We believe that Trump's anti-immigration stance is rooted in racism, and this hypocrisy re-enforces that belief. Hence why it's ok for white people to use chained immigration and not brown people.

[Endus]

Could someone clarify to me why being against to the type of immigration that brought the parents of Melania to America is hypocrisy ?

I mean, he wasn't in charge back then. So what did you guys wanted him to do ? To be a complete intolerant and to cut ties with everyone that benefited from it ?

Really ? Trump should no be married with Melania because he is against the immigration system that brought her parents to USA ?

If i am not getting it wrong, you guys are pathetic.

You can't grasp how opposing a measure his own extended family has personally benefited from is hypocritical?

At the very least, he should be expected to explain why they A> would otherwise be able to enter, or B> should not have been allowed to enter, according to his own measures.

[igualitarist]

To boil it down to something you might understand that was already mentioned here: This is like an anti-gay preacher being found in bed with his boyfriend.

Would you ever lend any weight to the preacher's opinions after that? He would have lost all credibility.

What we are getting at is: We believe that Trump's anti-immigration stance is rooted in racism, and this hypocrisy re-enforces that belief. Hence why it's ok for white people to use chained immigration and not brown people.

Which hypocrisy ? Thats what i want to understand.

To give an example, Brazil's poorest region (north region) is receiving tons of immigrants from Venezuela, and i think there should be more control of the government regarding borders control. We should not simply allow every venezuelan to enter here. So, according to some people here, i should not date or marry a venezuelan immigrant that came to Brazil, lets say, 30 years ago ?

[Endus]

Which hypocrisy ? Thats what i want to understand.

To give an example, Brazil's poorest region (north region) is receiving tons of immigrants from Venezuela, and i think there should be more control of the government regarding borders control. We should not simply allow every venezuelan to enter here. So, according to some people here, i should not date or marry a venezuelan immigrant that came to Brazil, lets say, 30 years ago ?

You would, at least, be expected to explain why your partner should not have been allowed to immigrate. Because that's what you are arguing. Or, you're being a hypocrite, and giving your partner different considerations than you are to everyone else, which is the point being made.

[igualitarist]

You can't grasp how opposing a measure his own extended family has personally benefited from is hypocritical?

At the very least, he should be expected to explain why they A> would otherwise be able to enter, or B> should not have been allowed to enter, according to his own measures.

Well, public funded higher education has benefited my family and i am against it. My opnions on political subjects are based on what i think is better for my country, even if my family had benefited from the thing i am against.

[jazen]

Melania is nowhere to be seen because she's in hiding. Her body double does a reasonably good job, wonder if Trump has noticed...

[Endus]

Well, public funded higher education has benefited my family and i am against it. My opnions on political subjects are based on what i think is better for my country, even if my family had benefited from the thing i am against.

Again, the point is that if you have benefited from X, you have to argue that you should not have been able to benefit from X. In the case of chain migration, if Trump opposes that, he must make the argument that his in-laws should never have been allowed into the country. Otherwise, he's a hypocrite; he wants to benefit from it, but he doesn't want others to benefit from it.

That he most likely wouldn't ever say that because it would drive a wedge between himself and his wife is just an explanation of that hypocrisy, as well as a demonstration of ideological cowardice.

[igualitarist]

You would, at least, be expected to explain why your partner should not have been allowed to immigrate. Because that's what you are arguing. Or, you're being a hypocrite, and giving your partner different considerations than you are to everyone else, which is the point being made.

Well, in both cases (Trump's family case and my hypothetical case), both immigrations happened decades ago.

Things are not static, and my stance may be subject to change based on several factors.

In my perfect world, there should be no borders. But considering the context mankind is in, i think a borderless world would cause more harm than good.

So i am not against immigration (and i really do not like the "ilegal immigration" nomination), but given the state of things, i think a immigration control politics is more than necessary.

So, nowadays i think should be a stronger control on the border with Venezuela, but i'd oppose to it a few decades ago, when that massive immigration was not a problem for that region.

So we should not judge people based on what happened decades ago, or in what they believed decades ago. Things change.

[Kiri]

First of all, I hate defending Trump because he is an absolute man-child. With that being said, he has never had an anti-immigration rhetoric. He has always been pro-immigration, against illegal immigration. Based on our immigration laws, I would say it is far more likely that her parents are legal though, and there probably isn't too much in this story (ex. family members over the age of 55 do not need to speak a single word of English to gain citizenship).

Honestly, I wouldn't read too much into this one. There is plenty to get upset about with the Trump administration, and I would focus more on that (like Trumps Twitter potty mouth).

That is actually false in this context. In recent months, Trump has consistently spoken out against both the Visa Lottery and what he calls Chain migration. In fact, he has spoken out against the very thing you talk about, i.e. family members not having to meet the standards of other applicants. He has created a boogeyman of one immigrant being able to bring in an unlimited and unchecked number of other immigrants. You can't just go 'he is only against illegal immigration', when that has been his rhetoric for the past weeks.

Funny thing is, if you were to deport Melania now she'd probably gladly go, anywhere to get away from the Donald.

Also, how exactly did "chain migration" become some kind of a snarl term? You WANT people to bring their families over, that encourages them to lay down roots and actually have a stake in the community. There are plenty of places where the work force just consists of temporary migrants who work for a few years before leaving to rejoin their families, and those are pretty much all universally dysfunctional societies. When none of the workers ever get to actually enjoy the fruits of their labor, they will have zero incentive to do a good job or contribute to society in any meaningful way, they're just there to make a quick buck before going home.

The things is simply this: a lot of people in Trump's base do not want immigrants to lay down roots. These people decided that everyone whose ancestors migrated to the US before a certain date is a true American and therefore better than others. They don't want 'outsiders' to come in, only begrudgingly accepting the best of the best.

[Rakoth]

Well, in both cases (Trump's family case and my hypothetical case), both immigrations happened decades ago.

Things are not static, and my stance may be subject to change based on several factors.

In my perfect world, there should be no borders. But considering the context mankind is in, i think a borderless world would cause more harm than good.

So i am not against immigration (and i really do not like the "ilegal immigration" nomination), but given the state of things, i think a immigration control politics is more than necessary.

So, nowadays i think should be a stronger control on the border with Venezuela, but i'd oppose to it a few decades ago, when that massive immigration was not a problem for that region.

So we should not judge people based on what happened decades ago, or in what they believed decades ago. Things change.

The WH should still explain why the situations are different, otherwise, it's going to be assumed to be a thinly veiled attempt at racism.

And what really has changed for the U.S. since Trumps parents were allowed in? The economy is stronger, better able to absorb the immigrants. Terrorism related deaths are still just a fraction of gun violence deaths. Racism is still very much a thing. Your example of Brazil and Venezuela shows a very marked change in influx of immigration in that particular case. (One I would argue doesn't change the fact that it's hypocrisy).

I am not anti-immigration. My wife was an immigrant, and so it would be completely hypocritical for me to ever hold that position. My actions would not follow my words and arguments.

[Kalis]

Except that nobody here is actually arguing that Melania's parents shouldn't be in the USA.

They're highlighting the hypocrisy in Trump's stance. That is what this is about...

They’re using two named people for political point scoring. That is an attack on people who just happen to be related to Trump, not people who have put themselves in the public eye.

It is no different than when some went after Trump’s young son, or Obama’s daughters, it is not cricket. It is gutter politics.

...and your repeated attempts to derail and mislead aren't fooling anyone.

Fooling people into what? My argument is that people shouldn’t descend to Trump’s level, so I’m not giving him a ringing endorsement.

[Endus]

They’re using two named people for political point scoring. That is an attack on people who just happen to be related to Trump, not people who have put themselves in the public eye.

Nobody's attacking Melania's parents.

They're attacking Trump.

This isn't that complicated.

[Kalis]

Nobody's attacking Melania's parents.

They're attacking Trump.

This isn't that complicated.

It’s using her parents immigration status, which is personal to them and should not be used for political point scoring, they are not public figures.

You’re no better than Trump, it is gutter politics.

[cparle87]

Today's big story is that the WH refuses to detail the immigration status of Melania Trump's Parents. While trying to set the immigration rules for everyone else. The bigger story is that Melania's father Viktor, is a former member of a Communist Party in Slovenia. If Michelle's or Hillary's dad were a Communist there would be much outrage.

Things seem different when the immigrants are from Slovenia.

Because they're not any of anyone's business? She's not part of the chain of command who could eventually become president, so it doesn't matter who her parents were or where she was born.