Immigration

Trump's Bogus Argument to Deny Green Cards and Citizenship to Immigrants who Play by the Rules

He wants to screw all immigrants, regardless of status

|

The Trump administration wants you to believe it's devoted to protecting American taxpayers from supposedly welfare-mooching foreigners. Don't. What

Trump
lane hickenbottom.reuters via newscom

President Trump is really doing is shutting the door on all but a small sliver of well-heeled immigrants — while telling the "tired," "poor," and "huddled masses" yearning to put cheap food on American dinner plates to get lost.

There was a time when immigration restrictionists used to insist that they weren't motivated by nativist considerations because their beef was not with legal immigrants, but illegal ones who don't play by the rules. Trump has ripped the mask off that lie. He has slammed literally every law-abiding legal immigrant group — refugees, asylum seekers, foreign family members of Americans, low-skilled immigrants, high-skilled foreign workers on H-1Bs, their wives, foreign students, and even naturalized citizens.

Still, none of that compares with what the administration is planning next.

The Department of Homeland Security is finalizing rules that would make it vastly easier to brand immigrants deemed "likely" to qualify for even minimal social services a "public charge" and make it harder for them to enter the country if they are abroad — or, if they are here, obtain green cards or citizenship or otherwise upgrade their immigration status. It might not even matter if these legal immigrants personally consume these services. It would reportedly be enough that their American children or spouses do. By some estimates, 20 million immigrants may be affected.

The proposed guidance, evidently the brainchild of Stephen Miller, an implacable immigration opponent, is relying on an 1891 law that barred immigrants "likely to become public charges." But this meant — in the evocative language of its time — "idiots, lunatics, convicts," or otherwise indigent or disabled folks who couldn't earn a living and would therefore become a ward of the state. Consistent with this understanding, DHS's 1999 guidance defined "public charge" as anyone who would become "primarily dependent" on cash benefits.

Miller's scheme would brand anyone who receives — or is likely to receive — services or subsidies (barring a few explicitly exempted) worth greater than 3 percent of the poverty line a public charge. This works out to $1 per day for a single person or 50 cents for a family of four, Cato Institute's David Bier points out. Even subsidies to purchase coverage mandated by ObamaCare would count against them. Worse, immigrants don't actually have to avail of these benefits to have their petitions rejected. They or their family simply have to be eligible for these subsidies because they are sick, old, have young children, or don't have unsubsidized coverage — unless they make 250 percent of the poverty level, in which case they'd be exempted.

The administration's intention here is clear: Cut legal, family-based, and low-skilled immigration and allow only the tippy top in.

The perversity of this cannot be overstated.

An immigrant would be barred from upgrading his status if he married, say, an American woman on Social Security disability till he crossed the 250 percent earning threshold. Or consider, a real-life example of a Haitian green-card holder who works 80 hours a week as a nursing assistant but has a severely disabled American daughter who receives public assistance. His citizenship petition may not have a prayer. In effect, Miller's plan would penalize immigrants not because they are needy but because they have Americans in their lives who are.

What's particularly unfair about this is that it's not like legal immigrants get any reprieve from taxes. With very, very few exceptions, they pay all the taxes that Americans do and then some (if you count all the fees that they and their employers have to constantly cough up to get and keep their visas). Denying them a shot at citizenship would mean creating a permanently disenfranchised class that can be taxed but will be barred from basic assistance (in addition to all the federal means-tested benefits), and won't be allowed to vote, eviscerating America's bedrock commitment to no taxation without representation.

There might be a rationale for doing something this draconian if there were any reason to believe that immigrants consume more welfare than the native born. But in fact, the opposite is true.

A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences estimated that an average immigrant arriving today would contribute $150,000 more in taxes than he or she would consume in benefits over their lifetime. But even poorer immigrants tend to consume welfare at lower rates and lower amounts than the native born. Furthermore, even when immigrants receive welfare, they don't quit working: 14 percent more keep their jobs as compared to the native born. And none of this takes into account the fact that immigrants constitute a windfall for America's public coffers given that they tend to come during their peak productive years after another society has borne the cost of raising and educating them. If anything, every working immigrant is a gift to American taxpayers. And when one takes into account the taxes pocketed thanks to the economic growth generated by immigrants, their fiscal impact becomes overwhelmingly positive.

The scheme's biggest tragedy is that it would seriously undermine America's genius in assimilating newcomers. The relative ease with which immigrants have been able to transition from being outsiders to full citizens with full rights has prevented the kind of alienation, ghettoization, and marginalization that has turned many European countries into tinder boxes. America's bargain — no, promise — has been that anyone who works hard, plays by the rules, and craves freedom from stultifying hierarchies of class, caste, and creed can be an American. Allowing the administration to use a fake argument to deny people breaking their backs in farms, meat-packing plants, and construction to make Make America Great everyday would serve neither this country — nor immigrants — well.

This column originally appeared in The Week

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

216 responses to “Trump's Bogus Argument to Deny Green Cards and Citizenship to Immigrants who Play by the Rules

    1. The German people didn’t care, either… They were cowards, just like you.

      1. Nor the Italians, Russians, Chinese, Iranians, Venezuelans. After they fuckup the country they are in, it is time to go fuckup another. If someone is not willing to fight and/or die for freedom where they are, are they willing when they run someplace else? The indication was on display this past weekend “No borders, no wall, no USA at all”!

      2. Hey Mexidouche, why don’t you and Little Jeffy get together and jerk each other off while hyperbolically crying about all the illegals?

    2. Me either.

    3. Me too neither also.

    4. I thought that Reason cared about ending the welfare state, but I guess not.

      You cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time:

      Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare

      Quote:
      About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households? Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born.

      1. If more than half of households with children led by native-born Americans collect welfare (and that doesn’t even count public schooling!), it doesn’t seem like cutting immigration is going to end the welfare state.

        1. It will help since more and more immigrants vote for welfare loving Democrats.

        2. Is adding still more people who disproportionately consume welfare going to help? Why not be smart and pick immigrants who will be self-sufficient? Why is that so hard a concept to grasp?

    5. Of course not. Treating immigrants unfairly or unjustly just elicits a big yawn.

      But when Apple treated Alex Jones possibly unfairly – OMG rev up the outrage machine!

      1. Of course not. Treating immigrants unfairly or unjustly just elicits a big yawn.

        By definition, if you are denied a green card due to past welfare use, you are not an immigrant. Furthermore, these are the conditions spelled out for getting a green card, applicable equally to everybody.

        1. Citizens do not have green cards, Mark22. Citizens can be immigrants! (gasp)
          Am I the only one laughing hysterically that so many Trumpsters, like Mark22, have no freaking clue what “immigrant” means?

          Merriam-Webster
          Definition of immigrant
          : one that immigrates: such as
          a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence
          b : a plant or animal that becomes established in an area where it was previously unknown

          1. Hihn, you’re banned. Stop posting here.

            1. Definition of immigrant
              : one that immigrates: such as
              a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence
              b : a plant or animal that becomes established in an area where it was previously unknown

    6. Ignoring Lefty nonsense really upsets them.

    7. Of course you don’t. Because you want to deny ‘open borders mobility’ even to American citizens. Shikha and her ilk don’t give a shit about that either since they only give a damn about foreign citizens.

      This whole argument is a bunch of diversionary bullshit by all sides and every political party. To avoid dealing with much tougher issues like the illegality of homelessness itself – or any discussion of welfare reform (what goes with the citizen v what goes with place) – or the destruction of our own mobility within the US.

  1. I’ve submitted Shitsa’s name to ICE.

    Fingers crossed.

    1. +8663472423 upvotes

  2. …they pay all the taxes that Americans do and then some (if you count all the fees that they and their employers have to constantly cough up to get and keep their visas).

    Wait… immigrants pay more in taxes than I do?? How are you defining “immigrant”? Someone here working on a visa is not an immigrant – they are someone here working on a visa. Do you mean naturalized citizens? Someone here for a year or two working in a slaughter house as knocker, sticker, bleeder, tail ripper, flanker, gutter, sawer, or plate boner?

    1. Trumpistas consistently show their penchant for missing the point.

      1. They’re too f-ing stupid to know what an “immigrant” is!
        A perfect profile of Trump’s cult.

        1. They’re too f-ing stupid to know what an “immigrant” is!

          It seems like you and Old Mexican are “too f-ing stupid to know what an “immigrant” is!”.

          The only immigrant visa is a green card. If you don’t have a green card, you’re legally not an immigrant to the US.

          1. Am I the only one laughing hysterically that so many Trumpsters, like Mark22, have no freaking clue what “immigrant” means?

            Merriam-Webster
            Definition of immigrant
            : one that immigrates: such as
            a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence
            b : a plant or animal that becomes established in an area where it was previously unknown

          2. Mark22 – your incredible ignorance of the US immigration system is displayed in every single post you make in this thread. I hope people reading you realize you are a troll, or incredibly ignorant, at best.

            1. The US Green Card is for PERMANENT RESIDENTS of the USA. They do not need a Visa.

            2. There are many US VISAs that immigrant may use for the purpose of immigration. You can read all about them on the US state department website:

            travel.state.gov

            /content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate.html

            1. Thanks!

      2. MAGA!

    2. — Do you mean naturalized citizens? —

      And permanent residents. And people who were granted an immigrant’s visa. The process to migrate is very expensive and on top of that they pay the same in income taxes and FUTA/FICA and other taxes that you also pay to the government.

      1. And permanent residents. And people who were granted an immigrant’s visa

        That’s the same group of people.

        1. Am I the only one laughing hysterically that so many Trumpsters, like Mark22, have no freaking clue what “immigrant” means?

          Merriam-Webster
          Definition of immigrant
          : one that immigrates: such as
          a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence
          b : a plant or animal that becomes established in an area where it was previously unknown

        2. No. Those are entirely different things and different groups of people.

          Mark22 you can cure yourself of your ignorance by reading the immigration section of the US State Department website.

    3. How are you defining “immigrant”? Someone here working on a visa is not an immigrant – they are someone here working on a visa.

      You sound like someone who deeply understands the US immigration process.

      1. Plus the bonus that he’s not wrong.

        1. The first step to becoming a legal permanent resident is getting an immigrant visa. Some people working here on visas are absolutely immigrants.

          1. Am I the only one laughing hysterically that so many Trumpsters who have no freaking clue what “immigrant” means? And they vote!

            1. It makes you trolls so mad too.

            2. Ellis, you’re likely laughing hysterically due to some neurological deficiency. Hence your disrespect to the president.

              1. Am I the only one laughing hysterically that so many Trumpsters who have no freaking clue what “immigrant” means?

                Merriam-Webster
                Definition of immigrant
                : one that immigrates: such as
                a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence
                b : a plant or animal that becomes established in an area where it was previously unknown

                Merriam-Webster is a dictionary

                1. This sock is Hihn too?

                  1. Clearly it is. He just can’t control himself, can he?

                    1. But why are Trumpsters so stupid on what an immigrant even is?

                    2. So, you have two socks on today, eh Hihn?

                      Go fuck yourself. In the meantime we will have to get these accounts purged too.

                    3. Am I the only one laughing hysterically that so many Trumpsters, like Mark22, have no freaking clue what “immigrant” means?

                      Merriam-Webster
                      Definition of immigrant
                      : one that immigrates: such as
                      a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence
                      b : a plant or animal that becomes established in an area where it was previously unknown

                    4. Hihn keeps spamming this comment. Everyone report it as spam.

                    5. Responding to your spam, thug.

                    6. Dumbfuck Hihnsano spams his incontinence.

          2. No, it isn’t. As one of many examples: you can come here on a student visa, get adjusted to H1B status, and then adjust your status to permanent residence without getting an immigrant visa, all legally. Don’t make up stuff if you don’t understand the system.

            1. I’m directly quoting from the state department, not making stuff up.

              1. The State Department processes visas. A visa is only a stamp in a passport. Upon arriving in the US with an immigrant visa, the person becomes a permanent resident, and not before that moment. Also, you can be in the US with a different visa, and apply to USCIS (a different agency) to become a permanent resident without getting an immigrant visa.

                Learn the system before you opine about it.

                1. A visa is not “only a stamp in a passport”. My wife has a 10 year US visitation Visa that is more than a “stamp in her passport”.

                  1. This is like watching chimpanzees trying to discuss quantum physics.
                    Blowhards Anonymous

    4. Dear Conchfritters,
      Educate yourself. Stop disgracing our citizens.

      Merriam-Webster: immigrant

  3. The Department of Homeland Security is finalizing rules that would make it vastly easier to brand immigrants deemed “likely” to qualify for even minimal social services a “public charge” and make it harder for them to enter the country if they are abroad

    “I thought Reason was against the welfare state”, said a cynical Trumpista in a previous post, one who didn’t read the article that was published back then that indicated the exact same thing: that mere supposition that a person is eligible for benefits, or members of his or her immediate family, would be enough to block a legal immigrant from entry or re-entry.

    The “likeliness of eligibility” sounds like pre-crime. The “deez is a nation of lawz!” crowd should be hard-pressed to explain how could mere suspicion be enough to remove the rights of a person and how could that be consistent with rule of law. Of course Trumpistas, quick to dehumanize everyone, will point to the (false) fact that immigrants don’t have constitutional rights, completely turning centuries of philosophical and legal traditions that led to the Bill of Rights on their head.

    1. ” Furthermore, even when immigrants receive welfare, they don’t quit working: ”

      What an attractive way of describing welfare fraud…

      1. Yes yes, the automatic assumption is that if a person is working and collecting welfare at the same time, that it constitutes fraud.

        Not that, say, some welfare programs REQUIRE work as a condition of receiving the welfare…

        1. He’s talking about the programs where it is welfare fraud Little Jeffy.

          1. LAME (lol)

            1. Not nearly as lame as some fag who slithers in through half a dozen sock puppets, eh Hihn?

              1. LAMER (lol)

                1. You’re worthless.

                  1. LAMERER! (lol)

                    It’s bullshit to claim welfare fraud = being on welfare and working.
                    And/or stooopid.

    2. The “likeliness of eligibility” sounds like pre-crime.

      If the person in question has a low wage job, or no job and no marketable skills, how is that person going to support himself and avoid becoming a public charge?

      Simple question. Credit card and mortgage companies ask this question all the time.

      1. If the person in question has a low wage job, or no job and no marketable skills, how is that person going to support himself and avoid becoming a public charge?

        Start his own business?

        Live out in the country and grow his own food?

        Live with relatives who will support him?

        Something that neither you, nor I, nor any central planner, can predict at this particular moment in time?

        1. So credit card and mortgage companies are stupid central planners when they ask for evidence that you can pay back a loan? Perhaps they should stop predicting anything at this particular moment in time?

        2. Little Jeffy, most f,those people aren’t going to do any of that. Instead they will collect welfare paid for by people like me and many of the others here. That isn’t ok.

          Now run along Little Jeffy. We’re very busy here and don’t have time for your antics.

      2. Even worse is when immigration creates conditions that require you to be outside of the country, and then USCIS DOES NOT allow you to work outside of the US. So you have NO POSSIBLE CHOICE but to be unemployed during that period which classifies you as a potential burden of the state.

        It’s really messed up, and so few here appear to comprehend it.

  4. Miller’s scheme would brand anyone who receives ? or is likely to receive ? services or subsidies (barring a few explicitly exempted) worth greater than 3 percent of the poverty line a public charge. This works out to $1 per day for a single person or 50 cents for a family of four, Cato Institute’s David Bier points out. Even subsidies to purchase coverage mandated by ObamaCare would count against them. Worse, immigrants don’t actually have to avail of these benefits to have their petitions rejected. They or their family simply have to be eligible for these subsidies because they are sick, old, have young children, or don’t have unsubsidized coverage ? unless they make 250 percent of the poverty level, in which case they’d be exempted.

    This is the part that’s unconscionable. Basically, if you don’t have employer-sponsored health insurance, they’re not going to let your foreign spouse get a green card anymore, if this is accurate.

    1. Shame. You shouldn’t have voted for Trump then.

        1. You voted for Hillary then?

          1. Because those were the only two choices.

            1. Just seeing who she voted for. Eliminating on choice at a time.

              1. Why is it any of your business?

                1. Why are you replying, Nosey McNoseyson?

                  Dont you have an Anarchy-land meeting to attend but cannot kick out any people who disrupt the meeting?

    2. For a family of four, the poverty level is $25,100

      https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines

      So 250% of that is $62,750. That is not an unreasonable requirement for an immigrant family of four to be self-sustaining. We can argue about the exact number. 200%, or $50,200 is OK with me.

      But at some level, we should not admit people who will consume more taxpayer resources than they can contribute. If you are a libertarian, you should not be in favor of admitting even more people to pick your pocket.

      1. First, show why there should be any sort of collective decision-making on who enters or leaves the country in the first place.

        1. So that we don’t admit more people who will pick the taxpayers’ pocket.

          Simple reason.

          1. You’re wasting your time Kevin. Little Jeffy is a soft headed kid who will keep asking that question no matter how many times it’s answered for him.

            He’s a fucking idiot about this subject and can’t form any new thoughts or ideas. Which is why I treat him so disdainfully.

      2. My wife is building her own business, with my help. Should she be deported then, as an entrepreneur who does not want to take VC money? How do you measure the criteria for this? Weekly? Monthly? First year here in the country? Do you pre-guess their earnings potential? How do you implement this plan without it being weaponized to selectively block or deport people who have the potential to be highly productive members of our society?

        As a Libertarian, you should want the market to decide. Not a mindless bureaucracy without due cause and no form of due process or appeal.

        1. There are hardly any libertarian here. It’s the only unmoderated major political website.
          So just like any marketplace, it’s overrun with bulles ,… whio then drive everyone else away … look around and say, “we’re the majority.”

          They also said, “What Jews?” when they ran Auschwitz.

          1. Lot of proggies though, eh Hihn? I’m sure you have your Hillary poster prominently displayed in that refrigerator box you live in that sits in that piss sealed alley.

            1. There are hardly any libertarian here. It’s the only unmoderated major political website.
              So just like any marketplace, it’s overrun with bulles ,… whio then drive everyone else away … look around and say, “we’re the majority.”

              They also said, “What Jews?” when they ran Auschwitz.

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano cries like a bitch about bullies while trying to bully others.

                “PROUD to be Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s Public Enemy #1!”

  5. First they came for the blacks, but I said nothing, because I was not black.
    Then they came for the Muslims, but I said nothing because I was not a Muslim.
    Then they came for the illegal aliens, but I said nothing because I was not an illegal alien.
    Then nobody came for me, because we didn’t need militarized police or a surveillance state anymore.

    1. If they come for YOU, who will vote Democrat anymore?

      If they come for YOU, who pay the taxes?

      1. Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh

        1. Go away Hihn.

          1. Hihn can go if he or she chooses.. I’ll stay, if only to defy your bullying.

        2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano echoes the sound of the breeze going through his head.

    2. Then nobody came for me, because we didn’t need militarized police or a surveillance state anymore.

      Governments never gives up power. They simply invent more boogeymen to justify increasing their power at the expense of your liberty.

      1. I really wish people would stop invoking ‘government’ as if it is some alien foreign naturalized alien being with free will.

        ‘Government’ now – is every one of these bigoted Trump trolls, every crony and swamp dweller, every bureaucrat and enforcer on a payroll. If/when that changes, it will become a new group of people.

        Yeah – those folks will likely prove they want power in order to squash your liberty. But it is those individuals who are the threat. And their takeover of government IS an act of voluntary association – even if that voluntary association is solely intended to steal from or coerce others.

        1. Let the draining of the swamp continue.

          West Virginia just drained one of its 3 swamps.

    3. Eventually they’ll come for the Martins.

      1. They can have my Dr. Martens when they pry them off my cold, dead feet!

        1. funny. i was riffing martians and martinis as well

    4. Keep drinking that Koolaid.

  6. By some estimates, 20 million immigrants may be affected.

    Good! Exactly what Trump was voted into office for. Let as few Democrat voters into the USA, assimilate the newly naturalized citizens, and reform immigration laws to benefit Americans.

    Americans decide the rules around here, not non-Americans.

    1. And also not Americans who want to marry foreigners.

      1. Nobody cares about foreigner-lovers. They’re just as bad as the subhumans they want to marry. Right, Republicans?

      2. “foreigner-lovers” are not a majority in America, so they lose.

        The rules for Americans marrying non-Americans should be super simple and cheap.

        The rules for Americans renouncing their citizenship should be simple and cheap.

          1. Within the framework of the Constitution it does.

            Its a Constitutional Democratic Republic NOT Anarchy-land.

            1. The framers specifically did not create a direct democracy, but rather a representative democracy, because they understood that mob rule can have bad consequences for people not part of the majority. I though someone who professes their undying love for the constitution would know this.

              In fact, the word “democracy” and its derivatives appear exactly zero times in this document you love so much.

              Funny that someone who claims to love the founding principles of the federal government would be so enamored with the very things that the framers did not want to happen.

              1. Mob rule under a Constitutional framework.

                Silent Majority rules again!

                1. At least you’re honest about your contempt for the framers of the constitution.

                  1. Yea, you dont even like the Founders.

                    Their historical document prevents Anarchy-Land.

                    1. Their historical document was intended to prevent the mob rule that you love so much.

                      You really need to change your name. You don’t love the constitution. You love the mob.

                    2. I will keep it since the Mob of Silent Americans wins again.

                      They love to use the Constitution to protect rights AND end Lefty policies.

                    3. Sarc, the constitution means nothing to you unless it is a convenience to get your way. You don’t believe i the rule of law. You’ve said this many times.

                      So just stop with the hypocrisy.

                    4. Yea, you dont even like the Founders.

                      The only time you seem to invoke them is when govt does something that makes it conceivable for the return of a Dred Scot decision.

                    5. Slavery is against the Constitution.

        1. hateconstitution1789|8.14.18 @ 10:54AM|#

          “foreigner-lovers” are not a majority in America, so they lose.

          This is a republic, not a democracy.
          Learn our Constitution.

      3. We do need the refocus our immigration efforts on bronzing in young hot looking women. Gotta improve the ratio.

        1. You can’t attract your own.
          And we all know why.

  7. Uh-Oh. Shikha has likely triggered right-wing snowflakes again – who are for original intent except when they are not.
    She did win Bastiat Prize for Online Journalism, but the snowflakes have no idea who or what Bastiat means.
    And they have achieved for liberty — nothing but whining. And tribal groupthink.

    1. Its spelled Jon Galt.

      1. Its spelled Jon Galt.

        John Galt

        This is how “Trumptard” is spelled.

        1. Of course it is. YOU had to check though.

          What a goober you are.

          1. Hihn really is easy to spot.

          2. Of course it is. YOU had to check though.

            I know how to spell my own name, that YOU fucked up.

            1. Hihn you were banned. Show some respect and honor it. Go away.

            2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano shows his dissociative personality disorder.

        1. (spits coffee onto monitor, laughing)

  8. How many immigrants enter the US every year?

    It seems to me that there is no shortage.

    1. About 1 million legal immigrant every year, a very generous number. We should be more picky about who we let in.

      1. Wait until you hear how many babies are born in the US every year. And we’re not picky about that at all.

        1. Who cares.

          The less babies, the quicker the Boomer Ponzi scheme will fail.

          1. “fewer”

        2. So in your eyes, there is no difference between citizens and foreigners? None whatsoever? All are equally entitled to be here?

          1. Okay, what’s the difference?

            1. Citizen is spelled differently than foreigner?

            2. Oh Little Jeffy, what are we to do with you? So many stupid questions. Asked and answered ad infinitum.

              Perhaps a shock collar bringing the pain when you ask the same dumb question each time? I prefer positive reinforcement, but am willing to make an exception in your case.

              For the mirth.

          2. Uhhhh yeah. Of course.

            1. Not an answer. Let me repeat the question: So in your eyes, there is no difference between citizens and foreigners? None whatsoever? All are equally entitled to be here?

        3. Given the number of babies killed every year, and especially the number of those who are black, I’d say we’re pretty picky.

          1. Learn what “unalienable rights” means

            1. Learnnwhat “banned and purged from Reason.com means”.

              1. They allow you!

  9. >>>America’s genius in assimilating newcomers

    que?

    1. We did fail miserably with Shikha…

  10. How about we offer asylum to South African farmers? They speak English, they are (or can be) self sufficient, and they seem to actually need asylum.

    1. Accepting white non-Americans is racist.

  11. It was never about illegal immigrants. Glad you finally woke up to that. It’s about racism and stopping all immigration. I’m sure it’ll be good for the USA to have a brain drain though..

    1. Why would non-Americans want to come to a racist immigration stopping country?

      Oh yea, because Americans are all sorts of races and mostly support capitalism which allow anyone from any race to succeed.

      1. If you don’t think a brain drain has already started you’re not paying attention. Plenty of people are avoiding coming here for work or play due to this kind of stuff. No sense in not just going to somewhere in Europe- it’s not like they don’t need scientists and engineers and such.

        1. No citation means that you’re full of shit.

          1. Your comments day in and day out mean basically display in big bright bold letters that you’re full of shit. It’s not my job to do homework for you.

            It’s clear it wouldn’t have any effect anyway.

            1. So, no citation?

              Yea, you’re full of shit.

            2. No wearongit. It’s your job to back up what you say. Not his.

        2. For real? Europe has high unemployment for skilled labor, they have their own brain drain to contend with, and so far they haven’t learned the trick of firing natives and replacing them with Indians. Probably because the salaries are so low to begin with. So I don’t know where these geniuses are going to go if not America.

  12. Wait, Reason keeps telling me that immigrants don’t receive welfare already.

    1. Reason shifts is argument depending on the article but the goal remains the same.

      Illegal Immigrants over Americans.

      1. Nobody ever claimed zero immigrants can use welfare, just that they use it at lower rates and lower amounts than natives. That’s literally spelled out right in this article. It’s not a new or shifted talking point.

        1. No they dont. There are over 300 Million Americans and very few use welfare.

          There were 1.183 legal permanent residents in the USA in 2016. In 2012 51% of immigrants used welfare compared to 30% for native Americans.

          In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs.
          Center for Immigration Studies

          1. Reason regularly floats discredited facts on anything related to open borders.

            1. The Cato study is newer than that CIS study, and explicitly discredits its methodology, not the other way around:

              Previous analyses by the Center for Immigration (CIS) come to contrary conclusions regarding the relative use of public benefits by immigrants and natives.18 The main reason for our differing findings is that CIS analyzes welfare use by entire households based on whether the head is an immigrant, whereas we examine individuals by immigration status. Focusing on persons is more accurate because households headed by immigrants often contain multiple native-born Americans, including spouses and children. Furthermore, the unit of assistance for the largest welfare programs of Medicaid, CHIP, SSI, Social Security retirement benefits, and Medicare is the individual, not the household. CIS’s focus on the household unit of assistance for all welfare programs?regardless of the actual unit of assistance used in apportioning benefits?inflates immigrant welfare use. Focusing on individuals, rather than on households, allows this brief to identify which particular subgroups, such as naturalized immigrants or noncitizens, are receiving public benefits, whereas CIS’s methods preclude that type of granular analysis.

              1. What you call “discredit its methodology”, other people would call “manipulates the numbers”.

                In any case, welfare usage is a red herring, since welfare is only a small part of the cost low-skill immigrants impose on the American tax payer.

                1. Stop your lying, Mark22

                  1. Stop your bullying Hihn. You are not even allowed to be here.

          2. You could’ve that in the first place, not handwaving about “Reason shifts its argument.” It’s been a pretty consistent argument, whether or not it’s wrong.

            1. The goal is open borders. The shifted arguments vary from just because to borders are unreal to Americans are racists to immigrants have a constitutional right to enter the USA to immigrants use less welfare than Americans to immigrants commit less crimes to illegals havent broken the law to….

              1. You could just as much claim “arguments vary from taxation is theft to government programs are mismanaged to it encourages dependency to it distorts the free market to…” That’s not ‘shifting arguments.’ That’s not even self-contradictory. Most positions have multiple talking points in support of them, they can even be used at the same time, that doesn’t make them dishonest.

                Even assuming anyone ever said that last thing and it’s not a very inaccurate paraphrase.

                1. lc1789 defends his own slurping on the gummint teat.
                  Borrowing trillions is okay, only if some goes into his own wallet.
                  A right-wing proggie!

                  1. Yeah Hihn, you keep saying that for no real reason. Yet LC never does that.

                    You’re just a dirty, weaseled, cowardly, douchebag of a liar.

                    1. Here’s the proof, loser. LC1789 = the right-wing entitlement mentality. Like your own

                      loveconstitution1789|2.8.18 @ 3:08PM|#

                      My retired father loves politics and we often discuss the nature of things.

                      I cannot get him to openly discuss social security and medicare reform with cuts. He is just hoping to check out before our debt crushes the USA. Its selfish as shit.

                      TROLL says more crushing debt is okay .. if it lines HIS pocket!

                      Insults HIS OWN FATHER, “selfish as shit” … but DEFENDS his own sucking at the gummint teat! (OMG)

                      WHINES that a multi-trillion debt increase is “giving my own money back ” … FROM WHERE?

                      BY STEALING FROM HIS OWN CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN … with MORE :crushing debt … but HE is not selfish as shit!!! Trolling for goobers.

                      What kind of fiscal conservative DENIES federal debt steals from our future … his own children? Brainwashed Republican goobers … as DANGEROUS as … brainwashed Bernie goobers

                      HED CUT HIS FATHER’S BENEFITS .. AND STEAL FROM HIS OWN KIDS … TO INCREASE HIS CASH, BECAUSE … HE’S “ENTITLED.”

                      The left borrows trillions for free stuff
                      The right borrows trillions for free tax cus
                      Two sides of the same statist coin.

                      Left – Right = Zero

                      (Will this trigger him again?)

                    2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano shrieks like a bitch about government entitlements while taking government entitlements.

    2. For some bizarre reason – Reason seems to ignore the state of California when it says immigrants don’t receive welfare.

      Even the STATE OF CALIFORNIA publishes numbers on immigrants on welfare and even admits that illegal immigrants take BILLIONS in welfare out of the USA/CA and send it back to their home countries.

      It’s a multi-billion dollar racket and we should crack down on it. We should streamline legal immigration to help keep honest immigrants honest.

      The drain on the system dealing with the screwed up immigration system results in illegal immigrants getting extra perks in CA while LEGAL, LAW-ABIDING educated, professional and productive immigrants like my wife get their processing delayed. It’s a mess.

  13. I would like to live in a world where people and goods could move from place to place freely without passports, fences, or border guards. I think most libertarians would. However it is unrealistic to ignore the claims by conservatives that the Democrats want to take more of productive people’s money, diminish or eliminate Americans’ liberty, and create a far more regimented society and that new arrivals (at least those who are not fleeing socialist pest holes) are more likely to vote for the Dems, since those claims are true. The obvious solution is to convince immigrants and their children of the value of a free society and economy and win enough away from the Democrats. However since the only present alternative to the Dems is the hapless Republicans who seem very poor at and often uninterested in reaching out to newcomers, some things will have to change before that can happen. Until then open borders are too much of a threat to an open society, and some restrictions are necessary. I don’t like it, but I don’t see a way around it.

    1. A borderless US would destroy this country. It would do nothing to elevate the people who would come here to feed off this country and would only serve as a financial drain, and drag our society down to the lowest common denominator internationally.

  14. Any damage that Trump will do will be erased by Executive Fiat by #46 (or #47, if Pence becomes an “accidental” POTUS) on Jan 21, 2021.

    1. The Christian Taliban is a different horror to individual liberty.

      1. “The Christian Taliban”

        Sure Hihn, whatever. Any other fantasy boogie men you jerk yourself off too?

        1. Umm, theocrats are those who promote a theocracy, like the Muslim Taliban, but our own Constitution mandates Separation of Church and State.

          History lesson: Many colonists came to the New World to escape religious persecution, as we all learned in school. The (un)Holy Inquisition was committing church/state moral atrocities until roughly our Civil War. And, of course, we’d suffered our own Salem Witchcraft trials.

          Brainwashed theocrats screech that “wall of separation” does not appear in our Constitution, as if it had to!! That’s the INTENT of the founders, as confirmed by our first three Presidents and a unanimous US Senate in our 9th year.
          1) The Treaty of Tripoli was negotiated under Washington,
          2) Signed by Adams, after
          3) Unanimous ratification by the Senate. as the Supreme Law of the Land.

          Article 11 of the Treaty: “…the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

          it was Jefferson who used “wall of separation” as the founder’s INTENT, when he was asked by Connecticut Baptists who feared religious persecution.

          So the evidence is overwhelming and undeniable, on the prevailing belief at our founding.

          Anything else I can teach you?

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano screeches about “Christian theocrats” while flouncing like a tent revival preacher.

    2. Swamp, what you mean to say is that any good Trump does will be erased by 46, and 47.

      1. There will be nothing good to erase, only catastrophes.

  15. This entire article is based on an NBC article that is an interpretation of a draft of the legislation. That’s a lot of steps to take to twist your own dystopian narrative. No one is trying to kick out law-abiding immigrants. The sky is not falling. Just another dumb Reason article trying to push the illegal-as-victim agenda. I only read for the lols.

    1. No one is trying to kick out law-abiding immigrants

      Trump has already started.

  16. Order for 34 million green cards fueling national protests
    http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/ord…..-protests/

  17. If you’re not here legally, why should we care.
    Go Home, or be Sent Home!

    1. This article is about people who are here legally. That’s… that’s right in the headline.

  18. “idiots, lunatics, convicts,” or otherwise indigent or disabled folks who couldn’t earn a living and would therefore become a ward of the state”

    I can see the author’s point: preventing these people from entering the country – or effectively voting – would torpedo many Leftist campaigns, which for her, um, tribe would be sub-optimal.

  19. Deport.

    I know a Ukrainian who works her butt off. She’s married to an Italian but got turned down twice for citizenship because she doesn’t have a permanent contract. Italy is tough on this stuff, as are many countries. Shiksa Dalma needs to get out more.

    1. This is not Italy. Yuy need to look around yourself more.

      1. Hihn, just learn to obey.

        1. The authoritarian right. (yawn)

          1. The Dumbfuck Hihnsano. (chortle)

  20. Miller’s scheme would brand anyone who receives ? or is likely to receive ? services or subsidies (barring a few explicitly exempted) worth greater than 3 percent of the poverty line a public charge.

    Yes, that’s the rule: no public assistance. It’s a weak rule, actually: economically, you’re actually a “public charge” (meaning, you cost other tax payers money) if you make less than about median income.

    The administration’s intention here is clear: Cut legal, family-based, and low-skilled immigration and allow only the tippy top in.

    Good!

    The perversity of this cannot be overstated.

    What cannot be overstated is the perversity of your position, namely that the US should let in people who then consume massive amounts of social spending and compete with low-income Americans desperate for good jobs and higher wages. Shikha: your views are utterly deplorable.

    1. you’re actually a “public charge” (meaning, you cost other tax payers money) if you make less than about median income.

      You lose AGAIN!!! The rich subsidize over half the entire personal income tax for the entire core middle class, $40,000-$99,999.

      So, unless you gross $100,000 or more — you’re slurping on the public teat, terrified of any competition.
      I call you a right-wing proggie

      1. Hihn, you’re the one who loses. And you lose every time. Every time you do something. Every time you say something.

        Time for hospice?

        1. Here again is PROOF you’re a fool, Shitlord
          (and a soak the-rich proggie!)
          .

          The rich subsidize over 40% of the ENTIRE share of income taxes for the “core middle class.” ($40-100k)

          Here are actual IRS data for 2014, the latest year with such detail.

          Ready?

          $40,000-100,000 AGI
          Reported 29% of income.
          Paid only 17% of the tax.
          Requires a 71% tax INCREASE just to pay their own way.

          !,000,000 + AGI
          Reported 15% of income.
          Paid 28% of the tax (nearky TWICE it’s share)
          Requires a 45.8% tax CUT, to pay its own share.

          Any questions?

          AGI Income (TOTAL $9102 02billion_)
          429.6 @ $40-50,000
          1116.3 @ $50-75,000
          1091.4 @ $75-100,000
          ——
          2637.3 TOTAL

          Now divide: Share of income = 2637/9102 = 29.0%

          Taxes Paid (TOTAL $1377.8 billion)
          31.6B @ $40-50,000
          95.8B @ $50-75,000
          105.6B @ $75-100,000
          ——
          233.3B TOTAL

          Now divide: Share of taxes = 233/1377 = 16.9%

          Now compare.
          Reports 29% f income, pays only 16.9% of tax.

          Now divide: Pays of their own share 16.9/20.0 = 58.4% of their own share.

          Thus, the rich SUBSIDIZE 41.6% of the core middle class ACTUAL share of taxes.

          That’s only reported income. Consider the majoriry of loophole aand exemptinons are restricted tlo the middle-class, and the rich subsidize over 50% of their ACTUAL total share of the tax.

          Anything else?

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano burps out his idiocy, thinks he’s making a point.

  21. This is fucking awesome! Trump has his downsides, be he sure as hell is based as fuck on some things. LOL

    For all you bleeding heart pussies out there, I DON’T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE WANTS/NEEDS OF POOR PEOPLE FROM ABROAD. Fuck them, and their children, and their 3rd cousin Jose who also wants to move here. I have no responsibility to reduce my quality of life for their benefit.

    All the so called numbers used to support low skill immigration being good, or not a net drain on native born, are all using fudged ass numbers. Usually conflating the average LEGAL immigrant with specifically the low end ones, whether legal or illegal. And all compare against the AVERAGE native born American, which includes black Americans in the average, which tends to completely fuck the average for crime/income/welfare use etc. Compared to native born whites/Asians/Jews or even Hispanics, low skill immigrants are way worse on basically everything, often by A LOT.

    We simply don’t need more janitors in this country, sorry.

    1. “prevented the kind of alienation, ghettoization, and marginalization that has turned many European countries into tinder boxes. ”

      Uhhhh, what world do you live in you retard? Have you ever been to LA? How about New York? Or tons of other major cities. They have big, poor, ghetto ass ethnic neighborhoods that have sprung up in recent years.

      They’re usually shitty and crime filled, except the Asian ones of course. And I think we’re seeing plenty of upheaval thanks to our shitty immigrants here too… Like the massive crowds demanding we give up having borders and stuff… And the ones participating in the riots against our duly elected president, where they’ve been breaking windows, burning cars out, etc.

      I know you have your head up your ass, but you can pull it out once in awhile and take a look around can’t you? I mean Reason won’t cover the mass orchestrated arson in Sweden that their “enriching” immigrants are committing, but you could at least mention that we’ve had mass protests filled with mostly illegals right?

    2. How do you evaluate which ones can make what amount of money? What is your brilliant plan to predict success?

      What do you do about the fact that in certain cases LAW ABIDING immigrants are not allowed to work during the immigration process? Do we classify all of them as deadbeats for following our laws, and broom them out?

      1. Are you a retard? First off, if we really wanted to we could require a job offer to apply for citizenship… Then you pretty much have it on lockdown.

        But in truth, just doing something half baked will result in vastly better results than doing no filtering. If somebody has a college degree in something useful, let them in. Simple as that. Even if we let in a few blow it cases who made it through engineering school, they’ll likely make more money than an 8th grade graduate, which is the average education level of an illegal Mexican immigrant BTW.

        No system is perfect, but there are pretty straight forward ways to nudge things in a generally good direction. Like ones that statistically are likely to be net tax payers, versus tax drains. We need to do a massive overhaul of immigration related law, there’s no reason somebody who is here legally shouldn’t be able to work. I believe you’re talking about the dumb spouse thing… But that is something that can be fixed, along with all the other dumb shit, like letting in the 3rd cousin of the brain surgeon, even though the 3rd cousin is a middle school dropout…

        1. Are you a retard?

          SOMEBODY is.

          First off, if we really wanted to we could require a job offer to apply for citizenship

          Unconstitutional unless citizenship is revoked when unemployed

          Would your own immigrant forebears have been allowed in under your rules?

          But that is something that can be fixed, along with all the other dumb shit, like letting in the 3rd cousin of the brain surgeon, even though the 3rd cousin is a middle school dropout…

          You’re also full of crap.

          1. Hes a lot smarter than you.

            1. (lol) Shitlord’s own ignorance is PROVEN here.

              1. (lol) Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s own ignorance PROVEN throughout the thread.

          2. You’re just soooo stupid. It’s not about having a PERFECT system… It’s about having one that eliminates some problems, versus zero problems. If we only allowed in PHDs, we would end up with basically zero immigrants who receive even any welfare throughout their whole life, pay in more in taxes than they use for basic stuff like roads/schools/etc, commit virtually zero crime, etc.

            Sure one in 1000 might get hooked on pills after a car accident or whatever… But statistics show that simple things like level of education, especially things above 4 year degrees, are very good life predictors.

            There’s just no reason to take in the dregs of the world. Whether or not my ancestors would have made the cut 100 years ago is irrelevant. The world was a completely different place then, and what constituted a useful addition to society is different. We have no need for low IQ people with strong backs in a post industrial economy… So we shouldn’t take them in. Period.

            If the idiots like you continue to get your wish, you will see what a shithole this country turns into. Just remember smarter people than you saw it coming and tried to stop it.

  22. Immigration without qualification only makes sense in a free market economy. The nanny state is too costly to allow anyone in without excellent, marketable skills and the capacity to care for themselves.

    1. So, you people are back to sterilizing low-income and welfare women?

      1. No… But if you don’t subsidize them, they’ll probably learn their lesson to not breed any more after they have one kid they can’t feed! Versus now they have 6 because I pay for them to feed them, while I myself feel like I don’t even have enough head room to responsibly breed myself!

        Having taxes so prohibitive responsible people can’t afford to have kids, while subsidizing low IQ blow it cases who are too dumb to realize they shouldn’t be having them, is not a good way to do things… Especially since IQ is mostly heritable from the parents, which means your discouraging smart children being born, and encouraging idiots. It’s basically Idiocracy IRL.

        1. Especially since IQ is mostly heritable from the parents,

          So you’re also a raging bigot.

          1. So, you’ve got two socks on today, eh Hihn?

            What a lying loser you are.

            1. Once again, the link proves you too are a raging bigot.

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s every post proves he’s a raging dumbfuck.

          2. WOW! A worthless link that says nothing in detail!

            I’ve read, ohhhh, probably a couple thousand hours on genetic heritability of various traits, including intelligence. Science is proving more and more than MOST traits, including personality, physical features, etc are all highly heritable.

            Most studies put it at between 50-80% genetic for intelligence. The most common range is 60-70%. That’s in a single generation mind you, parents to children. I personally have always thought that if you could run the factors back another generation or two (to grand parents and great grand parents) they would probably discover it is rather higher than that, since we know many traits skip a generation. No such studies have been done that I’ve ever seen.

            Either way, it is majority based on your genes. This is NOT DISPUTED by any mainstream scientists. PERIOD. Why would intelligence be any different than height or hair color??? If you don’t accept the reality that IQ is heritable in individuals, then you’re delusional. It would make sense since you’re a retarded ultra egalitarian who ignores reality whenever he doesn’t like it…

            1. And what exactly is bigoted about quoting a scientific fact? It is simply true. Low IQ people have low IQ children. It always varies due to randomness of DNA, and there is reversion to the mean, but it holds true in most cases statistically.

              This is yet another reason why having a skills based immigration system is important. If you import nothing but extra high IQ people, you end up having the next generation being above par too. I don’t believe in forced eugenics, but there is nothing unscientific about heritability of traits being a thing. One could create a country of all 120 IQ people in a single generation if they only allowed in people with 140 IQs (reversion to mean, so you gotta overshoot the goal!). Something tells me you don’t want below average intelligence citizens in a world where IQ is ever more important for work…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.