There's no reason for that to be a concern of US immigration policy. Better for us if it isn't, in fact.

Then I agree, it's a flawed program.

It provides no path to citizenship

Is it important that it does? Or maybe I don't understand what it means to not have a path to citizenship. Like you can't ever naturalize if you're here on H1b, ever?

The path to citizenship should be the same for everyone regardless of national origin, it seems to me, and it shoudn't be related to how you're in the country, or even if you are to start with. I think someone on a tourist entry should have the same path to citizenship, if they want it.

If they’re are that special and High skilled, we should have a visa that just lets them work for anyone.

I agree with this. I'd expand it - I think if you hold a passport from the US, Canada, the EU, Japan, or Australia you should be in a Shengen-like arrangement that allows you free movement and employability in any of those countries.

It's pretty standard in all countries for a work visa to be tied to your sponsorship by a particular employer, but you're right, it puts the employee in a terrible position. I'd like to see the US lead a movement to liberalize this visa category.

We don't agree on a lot but I'm forced to agree with you on this. The only weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment are the ones you would issue to the men and women you would muster in civil defense - AR-15's and the like.

The 2nd Amendment is an insurmountable obstacle to impactful, meaningful gun reform in the United States, regardless of your position on whether that reform should be carried out.

Immigration into the United States, especially for skilled people, should be easier than it is. It should also be easier for foreigners to enter temporarily to do seasonal unskilled work. And it should be a lot easier for citizens of the US to live and work throughout Europe, Japan, and Australia and vice-versa, simply on the strength of their passports. Conversely the asylum system is being abused and needs to be reformed, as well. (It's being abused by people who are left no other options for immigration into the United States.)

I largely think trying to secure a 2500-mile land border is a waste of money, the world's largest game of whack-a-mole, but if that's what conservatives want out of comprehensive immigration policy reform then I'd support it and it's good to see Fetterman, who's always been a reasonable guy, trying to lead the charge here.

It’s considered a no no to say Asperger’s anymore because he was a Nazi.

I don't care about that, and I disagree that Asperger's is on a spectrum with autism. They have totally different etiologies; Asperger's syndrome is clearly not just a "mild" form of autism.

I'm always struck by how Elon Musk, by virtue of being rich, gets literally zero space or allowance for his Asperger's syndrome.

Three failed marriages suggest it's pretty difficult to be married to him. But I'm not, so why would I care?

I'm happy for him to raise his 14 children and for me to raise my none.

There's 50 US states that each receive a different portion of their operating budgets from Federal grants. I'm not going to be able to comprehensively describe the distribution of grant funding in a single phrase in one sentence. If you're interested in this topic you're free to do your own homework.

Hardly propaganda to suggest that a gang of rapists is gang-raping

You've been at least reasonable in other comments. This one doesn't rise to that level.

then what did you mean by this statement? What do you call substantial ?

"More than insubstantial." Does plain English just puzzle you, or something?

Right, the "ban" that was no ban, as planes continued to arrive with passengers from China.

What state do you think operates primarily from grants?

Did I say "primarily"? You keep responding to points you're imagining.

I live in Oregon.

I mean, I'm not actually a frog.

If you choose to live in a high tax state, that is your choice.

If you choose to live in a state that receives a substantial portion of its operating funds from Federal grants, that's your choice. It's not my obligation to fund your lifestyle through double state taxation.

I'd favor an end to SALT deductions if we also ended all Federal grants to states. Agree? Oh, but you probably live in Florida, a state funded largely by placing a burden on all other Americans.

You don't vote Republican.

I do and have. But why would I continue to, when they raised my taxes and insist on lionizing incompetent losers like Trump? Joe Biden wins. Why wouldn't I follow the winner?

I am not the one confused.

You're incredibly confused. You believe I'm talking about property tax, but I'm talking about income tax.

As it should have.

No, it shouldn't have. A US state shouldn't be permitted to tax the same income twice. Each jurisdiction justly gets one bite of the apple; deduction of state taxes prevents the state from biting twice (once when you pay them, and again when they receive Federal grants.)

You should be happy to pay more taxes.

No, I vote for candidates who lower my taxes, so that I have more money.

SALT is tied back to income taxes and deductions. If you don't understand taxes, then ask questions instead of pretending and just looking foolish.

Yes, it's the Federal deduction of state income tax paid. Trump placed a cap on this deduction that hugely raised my fucking taxes.

What are you still confused about, here?

Trump put a limit of 10K of SALT.

Yes! As a result, my Federal income tax liability fucking increased!

How are you still so completely confused, here?

Trump was one of the first of the western leaders to close borders with China.

He didn't ever close the border with China, though. Flights from China continued to bring people into the US throughout the Trump administration and had not actually ever stopped.

What don't you understand? I'm talking about income tax.