Ladies and gentlemen, I have to quit this thread. It wasn't meant to be a reflection on the current President. Where I come from, our politics do not revolve around the Prime minister. We just don't care about it as much. I obviously misunderstood this community. It seems a lot of you dislike the president (which is fine, I don't care).
And I have to agree with those that say I can't really post anything that might be construed as a positive reflection of the President because it gets people riled up.
I thought a finance community would be celebrating our economic achievements. I understand this is not truly the case. Again, sorry if I offended anyone. Please understand that I come from a different culture, and I do not quite share the same values (clearly), but I am not here to try and disrupt the established order. Henceforth, I will keep in mind that conservatives should watch their step (although I am not a conservative by any means).
Just as an fyi, I think this comment may have caused some to make assumptions about your intent.
This country is the beacon of hope for lawful immigrants who work hard and play by the rules.
At face value, there's nothing wrong with this and you seem sincere. However, this is a common refrain for conservatives, some of whom aren't familiar with how complex following the rules can be and some of whom are knowingly using it as a political dog whistle.
For many, particularly those south of the border, following the rules means immigrating to the US could take an extremely long time and meanwhile they are often given the runaround when rules are applied inconsistently and arbitrarily by understaffed immigration courts. I realize you are an immigrant, but not everyone's path coming into the US is the same.
As a recent example, the Trump administration is currently attempting to create law through executive order which would require asylum seekers to apply for asylum in any country they pass through on the way to the US. Sounds reasonable in theory, but then you look at a map and realize that this means everyone south of Mexico must pass through Mexico. Everyone south of Guatemala must pass through Guatemala. And still, if both of these countries had capable asylum programs, that might be ok, but the reality is that they would not be able to process anywhere near the volume of the number of people this would affect.
Since 2015, Guatemala has received only about 92 cases a year for asylum processing.
...
roughly 50,000 Hondurans and Salvadorans applied for asylum in the United States in 2018
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/guatemala-safe-refugees-and-asylum-seekersThis rule would have sent all 50,000 of those people to the Guatemalan asylum system which has never experienced more than a few hundred applications in a year. As such, it is a de facto ban on applying for Asylum in the US for most everyone from Honduras, El Salvdor, and other South American countries.
I realize you aren't interested in getting into this discussion, just wanted to give some insight into why this topic can get people worked up and giving responses that seem uncalled for.
TL;DR - The history and discourse around political issues has created phrases which carry more meaning than the words themselves.
Please don't worry about disrupting "established order". We can't learn if we just keep saying the same things over and over.