Immigration

The Trump Administration's New "Public Charge" Rule is a Plan to Cut Immigration, not Reduce Burdens on the Welfare State

Helpful analyses by David Bier of the Cato Institute and Reason's Shikha Dalmia explain why.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

The Trump administration's new "public charge" rule for immigrants is an  attempt to massively cut legal immigration, under the guise of constraining welfare spending. I was thinking of writing a more detailed post on this subject. But David Bier of the Cato Institute has already published an excellent analysis that I cannot hope to improve on. Reason's Shikha Dalmia has helpfully expanded on  Bier's analysis (see also her discussion of an earlier version of the proposal). As they explain, the new rule would massively cut legal immigration, including by excluding large numbers of people who are net-positive fiscal contributors to the treasury. It does not exclude people based on actual use of welfare benefits, but merely based on a skewed bureaucratic determination that they are likely to use them for over 12 months during a 3 year period. In addition, the rule would cruelly separate large numbers of American citizens from parents, children, and other relatives.

As Shikha notes, this rule is also a massive executive power grab (unilaterally imposing a major change in immigration policy, unauthorized by Congress), of a sort that Republicans would surely have condemned had a Democratic administration done it. The rule is also, of course, just the latest front in the Trump administration's longstanding effort to cut legal immigration as much as it possibly can—a record that gives the lie to oft-heard claims that the administration only objects to illegal immigration.

I would add that the administration's plan to massively restrict immigration based on bureaucratic determinations about potential future welfare usage is based on reasoning similar to that of early 20th century eugenics advocates, who argued that we must use the power of  the state to preclude people from having children, if government experts determined that they were likely to become dependent on welfare.

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it in Buck v. Bell (the notorious 1927 Supreme Court decision upholding mandatory sterilization laws for those deemed mentally unfit), many  advocated such measures in order to prevent "those who already sap the strength of the State" from having "socially inadequate offspring" who are likely to become a fiscal burden. For many potential immigrants being forcibly condemned to a lifetime of poverty and oppression in Third World societies (and separated from close family members in the US, to boot), is an imposition comparable in magnitude to the mandatory sterilization once defended by Holmes and others.

As Bier and Dalmia explain, empirical evidence cuts against claims that immigration is straining the welfare state. But  to the extent that this is a genuine problem, the proper solution is not migration restrictions, but limitations on the actual welfare benefits themselves. The latter is far more just and humane than the former, and does not require relying on dubious predictions by government bureaucrats.

Advertisement

NEXT: If You're Near the Scene of a Crime, Authorities Can Demand That Google Hand Over Your Data

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.

  1. “unilaterally imposing a major change in immigration policy, unauthorized by Congress”

    More a matter of implementing a policy already in the law, which has recently been ignored. The current interpretation of this prohibition on immigrants likely to become public charges only dates back about 20 years, after all.

    “I would add that the administration’s plan to massively restrict immigration based on bureaucratic determinations about potential future welfare usage is based on reasoning similar to that of early 20th century eugenics advocates, who argued that we must use the power of the state to preclude people from having children, if government experts determined that they were likely to become dependent on welfare.”

    You’re really unhinged at this point, aren’t you?

    1. Is Ilya talking about DACA?

    2. Unfortunately I believe he is unhinged. As soon as one saw that he was referencing Reason’s Shikha Dalmia, one knew exactly the extent of the male bovine excrement within the article.

  2. Oh look, it’s Ilya Somin, launching another bromide on Trump Administration policy initiatives regarding illegal immigration.

    *Yawn*

    1. Um, no. Not sure whether you’re dumb or just stupid. The entire point of Prof. Somin’s post is that this policy initiative is about legal immigration, thus giving the lie to the claim that Trump is just about fighting illegal immigration.

      1. Who ever said that he was just concerned about fighting illegal immigration? I suppose you think that means he shouldn’t be concerned about keeping people with contagious diseases out of the country, or refusing entry to terrorists, either?

        This is one of the left’s stupider lines: “If your only objection is to illegal immigration, just repeal all the immigration laws! Problem solved!” The whole POINT of fighting illegal immigration is so that the law’s restrictions on who can enter can be effective, so obviously you have to care that those restrictions get enforced.

        1. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Brett Bellmore, the living personification of the “I’m not touching you” game.

        2. Who ever said that he was just concerned about fighting illegal immigration?

          The people who pretend that it’s about something other than racism. (“Oh, no, we don’t hate them; we just support the rule of law and think people shouldn’t benefit from lawbreaking.”)

          1. Look, I’m perfectly happy to have all the English literate, law abiding entrepreneurs Nigeria can send us. And those engineers from Chad? Send more, please. Mexican software engineers, too, can’t get enough of them.

            And, Scandinavian criminals with Ebola? Don’t need any of those, thanks.

            It’s not my fault that objective, race blind criteria for who would make a desirable immigrant happens to produce a racially disparate outcome. Racially disparate outcomes are the natural result of any policy that ISN’T racially discriminatory, in a world where the underlying facts don’t happen to line up the way you’d like.

            And the world didn’t consult with you before being the way it is.

  3. To amplify, the statute in question, as quoted in the Cato paper you yourself link to, says, ““Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular [or immigration] officer…. is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.””

    That’s the actual policy enacted by Congress, and it’s pretty explicit. Trump’s proposed policy seems perfectly consistent with the statute, no matter what you might think of it’s merits as a policy.

    1. Meaningless emotional derangement says you’re wrong.

      That’s the doctrine a California judge will use to justify a national injunction against this new policy that precisely mirrors the text of the law. The judge won’t use those words exactly, but it will be derangement just the same.

  4. Reducing immigration is a good thing.

    1. Reducing ILLEGAL immigration to zero would be a very good thing.
      But we need at least 3-4 million legal immigrants a year for a healthy economy.

      1. Depends, we could try to spur Americans to have kids themselves. Japan is doing fine, with like zero immigration.

        The biggest problem with replacement rate birth rates, is that people (and governments) are used to property tax values going up. The reason they are not still cratered from 2009, is that Hispanics are buying houses now in record numbers now that loan standards are lowered again (although not to the pre-2009 level).

        1. Actually, no. Japan is *not* doing well. They’ve got a much bigger problem with their labor force aging out than we do.

          1. Nothing automation can’t fix.

          2. You have presumed that a reduced labor force is anathema to a growing economy. Japan is in the best position of all nations to become the global economic leader of the late 21st/22nd centuries.

            1. Japan IS betting on automation fixing the problem. They’re going all in on it.

              If it works, it’s got one huge advantage over massive immigration, for solving the birth dearth: Japan will still be Japan, not some other country that happens to be in the same place, and with the same name, which appears to be the fate most of Europe have chosen.

              1. The Japanese are willing to make a trade-off: Japan for the Japanese and a slightly lower GDP due to a stagnant or slightly declining population.

                1. You’re ignoring some other troubling tradeoffs Japan has been willing to make, but which would (or should) be anathema to the US. To make up for the demographic problem, Japan has turned to massive debt spending and has a government debt:GDP ratio double that of even the profligate United States. Without those measures, the decline would be even worse.

                  1. NToJ, I wonder if you realize that you’re advocating for the need for more people to buy more stuff to fluff up GDP, which is exactly the most cogent critique of capitalism that Marxism ever produced.

                    1. Curing the demographic shit bomb is not about importing consumers. Exports and net exports increase a country’s GDP, too. You can have a thriving and growing GDP built on little other than foreign consumers. Exports factor in to total production, and domestic income earned on foreign sales. So no matter how you calculate GDP, it includes money you make selling goods to foreigners. The “fluff” argument is a non-sequitur, and makes me think you don’t realize what we’re actually talking about. Maybe that should have been more apparent to you, when you ended a sentence praising a Marxist argument.

                      The strategy of curing the demographic shitbomb is to import humans to do the work. It is a biological fact that humans begin their lives with negative commercial productivity, they generally grow towards a peak, and then diminish afterwards towards zero or negative productivity. A country made up exclusively of people under the age of 2 or over the age of 100 will have a negative GDP, not for a lack of consumers, but because of a lack of producers.

                      I’m not advocating for Japan’s profligate debt-financed spending. I’m not even advocating for or against Japan’s strategy, at all. I’m just pointing out that the decision for Japan was not merely between “slightly lower GDP” or cultural identity. Other sacrifices were made to ensure the “slightly” part.

                    2. NToJ, I wonder if you realize that you’re now also advocating for the return of women to their historical primary role as homemaker, because women are net consumers of taxpayer funds over their lives. From a pure utilitarian perspective, a society comprised only of women taxpayers would also have negative GDP. Most men are active contributors to society from maturity until old age, women, even working women, are a net drain for most of theirs. Only that women are necessary for the continuance of the human race are they a positive, from the utilitarian perspective you’re implicitly advocating.

                      I also question your a priori assumption that increasing population = increasing GDP when it can also happen through technological innovation, and further that GDP growth is also necessary, as society can maintain a high standard of living.

                      Japan wants to stay Japanese, why does that bother you so much?

                    3. women are net consumers of taxpayer funds over their lives. From a pure utilitarian perspective, a society comprised only of women taxpayers would also have negative GDP. Most men are active contributors to society from maturity until old age, women, even working women, are a net drain for most of theirs.

                      What in the world are you babbling about?

                    4. It’s pretty simple. Women, as a class, take more by a large margin than they pay in. This gets larger when you include tax expenditures, not just straight gov’t welfare benefits or entitlements. Moreover, women live longer, collecting more, than men who either work themselves to death or die young working in more dangerous occupations.

                      So in short, the typical woman does not pay into the society anything near the value of her labor output.

                      This excludes childbirth, of course, because without it, we would cease to exist.

                      Link to SOME of the research on this: Research shows disparity between taxes paid by women and men

                    5. @mad,

                      “I wonder if you realize that you’re now also advocating for the return of women to their historical primary role as homemaker…”

                      If you want this discussion to continue (and I can understand why you wouldn’t), you need to stop changing the subject.

                      For the second time, I’m not advocating for anything. I’m responding to your point about your naive understanding of the Japanese immigration tradeoff.

                      “I also question your a priori assumption that increasing population = increasing GDP…”

                      Importantly I never said that. It’s implicit in what I said that nakedly “increasing population” would not increase GDP, as the example of the society with children and the very elderly should have indicated. Further, when I said that curing the demographic shitbomb required importing “humans to do the work” that should have suggested to you that I was talking about humans who are in productive years of their lives.

                      Technology can improve output. We all agree about that. There yet remain jobs that technology requires people of a certain age to perform. Think construction.

                      Japan should do what the Japanese want to do. It bothers me not that Japan has a different strategy than I would. But I’m entitled to disagree with their strategy, and select a different one for the United States. Does that bother you?

                    6. @mad

                      “This excludes childbirth, of course, because without it, we would cease to exist.”

                      It excludes everything women (and men) do at home, that increases value for other people as well, but which is a non-taxable event.

                    7. Hmm, clearly that fact that Japan wants to be Japanese bothers you, because you’re so strongly saying they are wrong for doing so (the “demographic shit bomb” as you repeatedly call it). To your question, because you want America to accept large numbers of immigrants on the materially unsupported premise that they are essential for an economy, it does bother me (at least enough to respond to you) because you’re so blithely dismissing an example of a people who decided not to do what you advocate.

                      As for changing the question, no really, I’m asking you to understand the fundamentals of what you’re advocating. In fairness, you’re close in that you admit that it’s a trade-off. But your assumptions are ones that not everyone shares, for example that GDP growth is essential and only achievable through increased demand for products created by an an increased supply of people. At least you’re backtracking now and saying it can come from innovation too.

                      Yes, yes, there are some jobs that only people can do. Sure. No one is saying the Japanese people are going to disappear, though.

                      Finally, saying that home labor is unpaid is a fallacy, because there a market for it; nannies, cleaners, surrogate motherhood. Due to opportunity costs and low incomes, most people just do it themselves.

                    8. @mad,

                      “because you’re so strongly saying they are wrong for doing so (the “demographic shit bomb” as you repeatedly call it)…”

                      You’re misinterpreting what I’m saying. The demographic shitbomb is the problem they’re trying to address. That demographic shitbomb is itself a function of private decisions by Japanese to not have children. I have no problem with those decisions. People are free to do whatever they want. I happen to think people should be having fewer children. So good on them.

                      “…because you’re so blithely dismissing an example of a people who decided not to do what you advocate.”

                      I’m not blithely dismissing them. I’m just pointing out that Japanese economic growth has been fed in large part by massive government debt expenditures. I am weary of doubling or tripling America’s debt, if the alternative is importing competitive workers.

                      “Finally, saying that home labor is unpaid is a fallacy…”

                      There’s no benefit to engaging you in some semantic thought experiment. People who “do it themselves” are not paid, are still performing work that benefits people. Avoidance of the opportunity costs is the payment, it just isn’t reflected in GDP. I’m open to criticisms of GDP as a measure of productivity, but that’s neither here nor there because I’m disinterested in engaging with you on your strange non-sequitur re: what you think I’m advocating for about women. You’re wrong about that, too.

                  1. I read as far as I could stand into this.

                    It is incoherent. Complete nonsense.

              2. That would indeed be a “huge advantage” — from the perspective of someone who thinks being around people who don’t look like him is a bad thing.

                1. The deep-seated racism of folks like David Nieporent is quite a thing to behold. They are constantly projecting their preoccupation with skin color onto others, ignoring the simplest of issues economic and legal that even a 3rd grader can understand.

                  1. Do you talk like this in real life?

                2. I thought diversity was valuable? How do we get that value if we throw every country in a blender?

        2. I work for a Japanese company. They do not have -zero- immigration. Walking through our Japanese offices you will see dozens of nationalities. And Japan recently announced plans to increase immigration especially for lower skilled positions.

          Immigration is an absolute requirement for a healthy and growing economy.

          1. regexp, they have close to zero permanent immigration. They have a limited guest worker program, and those are not a pipeline to permanent residency or citizenship. To become a citizen, you have to pass a Japanese fluency test at a level that is very difficult for those who didn’t grow up speaking it.

            Immigration is not a absolute requirement for a healthy and growing economy. What makes you believe it is? And if it is, what happens to the place where people leave, are they destined to have an stagnant economy?

            1. “They have a limited guest worker program, and those are not a pipeline to permanent residency or citizenship.”

              Right, they have foreign workers competing with domestic workers. That’s immigration.

              “Immigration is not a absolute requirement for a healthy and growing economy. What makes you believe it is?”

              A labor pool sufficient to meet demand, is. Immigration–including illegal immigration–is just a symptom of competing demands for labor in two different places. Whether it’s me leaving my law firm to work across the street, or me moving to London to join a law firm there, that’s just labor competition. And labor competition is a necessary component to a healthy and growing economy.

              The better question is what makes you think Americans will be more productive if they never have to compete with anyone else, again?

              “…what happens to the place where people leave…”

              They have to pay their workers more to retain them. If they’re unwilling to do that, it simply reflects that the person who moved is more valuable to the place where they moved, than he is to the place he moved from. Which means the transaction isn’t zero sum; the receiving country is better off than the losing country is hurt.

              1. No, the Japanese guest worker programs are for roles that DON’T compete with native citizens (deliberately, by policy design), and they are NOT allowed to transition to permanent residents or citizenship. Thus, that is not immigration. You think the guest workers in Qatar are immigrants too? Think again.

                You’re also focusing on the supply side and neglecting the demand side. Supply doesn’t create it’s own demand, and lack of supply doesn’t always increase demand because people find alternate means or similar goods. In this case, for the Japanese, they are using automation.

                1. “No, the Japanese guest worker programs are for roles that DON’T compete with native citizens (deliberately, by policy design)…”

                  We must be talking past each other re: the definition of “compete”. The Japanese guest worker program brings in foreign workers to take on, for example, hotel, nursing home, and food-processing plant jobs. These are jobs that, without the foreign labor, will have to be performed by domestic people. The purpose of bringing in the outsiders is that they are willing to perform the work for cheaper than domestic workers. We call this competition.

                  “In this case, for the Japanese, they are using automation.”

                  You may not be aware of this, but they are also using foreign workers. The number of foreign workers in Japan has roughly tripled in the last 10 years, with most of the growth in the last 4 years. With the overall population shrinking, if this trend continues it will not be long before Japan has the same percentage of foreign workers as many European countries.

                  1. No, I am quite aware that the Japanese are allowing some foreign workers in, temporarily, without a chance of citizenship or permanent residency. They also took in about 10 refugees too. We are talking past each other, to the extent that you think that a guest worker program is immigration. It’s not.

                    Here’s where we are talking past each other. I’m not going to claim that the labor market is frictionless is Japan, but if there was domestic labor available for the going market wages for elder care in Japan, then they would be competing with domestic labor. There is not even a supply of domestic workers for elder care. Because of limited resources (both personal and taxpayer) labor in Japan finds a higher more valuable use for their labor elsewhere, furthermore, there will not be an market response to pay higher wages because of limited resources, thus limited quantities of foreign labor are brought in where there isn’t domestic labor. That is not competition…that’s outsourcing.

                    1. “Because of limited resources (both personal and taxpayer) labor in Japan finds a higher more valuable use for their labor elsewhere…”

                      Because they’re not willing to perform the work for the pay offered. Whether we call this an absence of “domestic labor” is irrelevant. There is domestic labor, just not sufficient numbers of people willing to do it at the price the market will bear.

                      We agree that there is a different kind of pressure in Japan, in that because of its age problem, there are jobs that need to be done, but just not enough people to do them. But Japan cannot solve that problem today except by importing the labor. Maybe in the future automation will sufficiently decrease the number of jobs that need to be done, but that isn’t where Japan is at, today. Which is why, predictably, they’re looking to import labor. Because that’s the only other solution, short of letting the elderly die in the street, or having the government pay, or mandate higher pay, for elder care, construction, etc.

      2. “we need at least 3-4 million legal immigrants a year for a healthy economy”

        The peak year for new permanent residents was 1.9 million in 1991, next highest 1.283 million in 1907.

        1. You left out the first part. If illegal immigration were reduced to zero we would need more legal immigration to make up the deficit now provided by illegal immigrants.

        2. I’m not an expert on labor markets.
          It just struck me that allowing about a 1% population rise via healthy, legal, adult immigration–with whatever screening process you want to impose–would be good for the overall health of the economy.

      3. Do you have any actual data to back that up? Here are the immigration numbers from 1830. I challenge you to find a correlation between healthy economies and immigration exceeding 3 – 4 million legal immigrants each year.

        https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2010/table01.xls

        1. I’m interested to hear what the point is you think posting a link to that chart, and your specific reference to 1830, is making?

          As an aside, the US had more than 2 million slaves in 1830.

          1. I think he made a typo, the chart goes back to 1820.

            The point, the same one I made, is that we have never had 3-4 million immigrants so [contra Smooth] we certainly don’t need that many for a healthy economy.

      4. Smooth:

        That’s a reasonable position to stake out. Would you then agree that 6-8 million would be suboptimal? And much higher numbers potentially harmful?

        1. Also your position is the one Trump has elucidated, calling for immigration in “higher numbers than ever before.”

      5. If the purpose of immigration is to ensure a healthy economy, would it be prudent to ensure that the “3-4 million legal immigrants” are net economic contributors, rather than net economic drains?

        1. Immigrants are net economic contributors, especially in comparison to native borns.

          1. NToJ, you’re missing a whole ton of negative externialities. To start, reduced wages for citizens. It was found, for example, that the mass influx of low-skilled Cuban workers to Florida in the 1980s from the Mariel boatlift “caused the average wage of the least-skilled Miamians to drop dramatically, by 10 to 30%.” What has this done nationwide? Difficult to quantify exactly, but don’t complain about 30 years of stagnating wages and incomes when simultaneously advocating for 3-4 million immigrants a year.

            And not to mention an increased crime rate. Also, while this maby be conflating illegal and legal immigration, the U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that noncitizens (about 7% of the population), receive 22% of federal murder convictions, 18% of fraud convictions, 33% of money laundering convictions, and 29% of drug trafficking convictions.

            1. He meant they are net economic contributors to wealthy employers.

              That’s true, because our interventionist mass immigration policy is just another wealth redistribution scheme. It redistributes $500 billion from the pockets of poorer Americans to wealthier Americans. It also socializes $50 billion in taxpayer burden of immigrants while privatizing the gains.

              https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-immigration-economy-unemployment-jobs-214216

            2. “To start, reduced wages for citizens.”

              What makes you think I’m missing this externality?

              “…the U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that noncitizens (about 7% of the population), receive 22% of federal murder convictions, 18% of fraud convictions, 33% of money laundering convictions, and 29% of drug trafficking convictions.”

              What’s your source? I went to the US Sentencing Commission’s Interactive Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics and found this. It has murder at 10%, not 22%. It will also show that non-citizens are generally underrepresented in violent crimes (like assault, robber, auto theft, burglary).

              You’re absolutely correct re: drug offenses. For example, despite making up only ~7% of the population, non-citizens account for 60.8% of “Drugs – Simple Possession” crimes at the federal level. Do you suppose this is because non-citizens are that much more likely to possess drugs than citizens?

              1. Link

                Nice to know you’re comfortable making your fellow citizens worse off through the importation of non-citizens. Mask is off I suppose.

                1. Here’s the data. The article you rely on, and which was relying on a Tucker Carlson graph, was for 2016. It’s an outlier year, and the data sets are tiny (around a dozen a year).

                  “Nice to know you’re comfortable making your fellow citizens worse off through the importation of non-citizens. Mask is off I suppose.”

                  The people who hire immigrants are citizens too. The people who enjoy the benefit of their labor are citizens, often the same citizens who are having their wages depressed. I’m not going to apologize for supporting competition, and I’m not going to be convinced to turn into a socialist just because competition is harming native workers. Capitalism is premised on competition that is going to be potentially ruinous for the loser. That’s cruel and unfortunate, but also necessary in a world with finite resources.

                  In any event, one solution for the depressed wages is to tax the net economic benefits enjoyed by competitive foreign labor, and reinvest some of the money into the domestic losers. Most economists view this as more efficient than banning labor markets. So do you support taxation to accomplish this? What about raising the minimum wage? If you are opposed to raising the minimum wage, would you like to borrow my mask?

    2. Or, hear me out: keep allowing immigration, and deport a whole bunch of useless native born people instead.

      1. Nieporent:

        Sure, why not? Just take life liberty and property from people with impunity.

        Hear this one out, if people disagree about stuff so vehemently and seem to have contempt for one another, why continue having them impose their views on each other?

        Instead, just agree to disagree. Dissolve the federal government and let states govern their own affairs.

      2. Point: Replacement theory is garbage.

        Counterpoint: “deport a whole bunch of useless native born people instead.”
        “Amen”

        1. I’m not sure what this latest “replacement theory” talking point is, except that it apparently originated from the wacko mass shooter (not the attacks on ICE, though there have been 4 of those in a month and 2 in TX just yesterday – you might have missed it in the media).

          But anyone who didn’t notice the plot to replace American voters with new voters more amenable to “progressive” anti-American agenda, just hasn’t been paying attention or is lying because they’re in on it. I mean, they’ve announced their intentions in countless op-eds.

  5. “the proper solution is not migration restrictions, but limitations on the actual welfare benefits themselves.”

    It would be interesting–not particularly pleasant, but interesting–to live in ImpossibleLand, the libertarian paradise, where borders are open but individuals who can’t get jobs beg in the street until they starve to death. Also, drugs are legal, but those who overdose are allowed to die and their corpses rot until the nearest landowner determines that the smell is reducing his property value, and dumps the body somewhere. There is, however, no possibility of any actually existing society organizing itself on such principles.

    1. Where is the record of that happening in the US when we did have open borders (the first immigration legislation wasn’t passed until the 1880s and that was only against the Chinese – most of it didn’t start to kick in until the 1920s), all drugs were legal (prior to the 1910s), and there were no government welfare handouts (prior to the mid 1930s)?

      1. Huh? The “Old Poor Law” was enacted in 1601, formalizing earlier practices.

      2. incorrect, the first immigration legislation was passed by the first congress in 1790, it said

        “provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were “free White persons of good character”.”

        than it progressively got harder in 1795

        The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or “first papers”, which created a two-step naturalization process, and by omitting the term “natural born.” The Act specified that naturalized citizenship was reserved only for “free white person[s].” It also changed the requirement in the 1790 Act of “good character” to read “good moral character.”

        1798 got even harder

        “increased the period necessary for immigrants to become naturalized citizens in the United States from 5 to 14 years”

        then the 1802 one added a few other provisions

        The United States Congress passed the Naturalization Law of 1802 on April 14, 1802.[1] The 1802 act replaced the Naturalization Act of 1798, and provided:

        The “free white” requirement remained in place
        The alien had to declare, at least three years in advance, his intent to become a U.S. citizen.
        The previous 14-year residency requirement was reduced to 5 years.
        Resident children of naturalized citizens were to be considered citizens
        Children born abroad of US citizens were to be considered citizens
        Former British soldiers during the “late war” were barred unless the state legislature made an exception for them

  6. It must be wonderful, Ilya, to be able to read Trump’s mind, from a distance, no less, to determine the motivation of this policy, other than as it stands at face value.

    At face value, by the way, it is perfectly consistent with the law. He is simply enforcing it.

    1. Would that a lot more laws get rejected because of the smarmy real reasons behind legislation, rational basis through strict scrutiny be damned.

      1. And who is to determine what the “real reasons” might be? Ilya? The media? Some administrative soothsayer? Perhaps a government commission? Ha!

        Progressives always seem to know the “real reasons” Republicans, conservatives, or Trump and his minions do or say anything. It’s racism, bigotry, anti-immigration, white supremacy, all of the above. Right?

        1. Would one argue most laws are self-serving to powerful interests? That’s why governments exist around the world and are lousy witj corruption — corruption is the goal and originator of the government impulse, not an unfortunate side effect.

          This country tries a novel approach to tamp that down, but is still behind many if not most laws, and intregral to the final forms of almost all.

          I have no magic way to determine this, but am fine complaining about its pervasiveness.

          And my point is not as far from you as you may think. My point is the left is just being fair weather friends to the principle that laws or regulations (or presidential orders) should be rejected by courts for impermissible “real, behind the scenes reasons”, and will conveniently start giving it very low weight the next time they have the presidency.

    2. “It must be wonderful, Ilya, to be able to read Trump’s mind, from a distance, no less, to determine the motivation of this policy, other than as it stands at face value.”

      Because it’s not at all like Trump and his policy staff have ever said they’d like to cut back on legal immigration. Where could that crazy idea have come from?

      1. That the administration would want to cut back on legal immigration is immaterial to this matter; the immigration topic is not one-dimensional. The law says, and many people support, that someone who is likely to become a public charge is not eligible ti immigrate. Why not just say his motive is to enforce the law, and to make immigration legal and rational again?

        1. Re-read the text I quoted, please.

          Speaking personally, I don’t believe that Trump’s motive is to “enforce the law”. If this newly announced policy is to “enforce the law”, WTH was he doing before the new policy?

  7. Welfare should be reserved for American farmers and oil/coal companies.

    1. If it weren’t for the left being batshit crazy and Jimmy Carter being a complete asshole, oil and coal power plants would’ve been almost entirely replaced by nuke/nat gas plants at this point in time. As for farming subsidies, that bipartisan knot is going to be a bitch and a half to solve.

      1. Portland General Electric took their one nuclear plant offline and decommissioned it because they couldn’t keep it running. The Washington Public Power Supply System had plans to build 5 nuclear plants, but only completed one before defaulting on the bonds used to finance the project. One of the remaining four was later completed and brought online.
        Say, when will the nuclear-waste containment facility be completed? We’ve only been accumulating radioactive waste for 70 or 80 years now…
        Japan invested heavy in nuclear power plants… want to buy some prime waterfront property at Fukushima? TEPCO is a really motivated seller… I bet you can get a GREAT price.

        1. I’d go for some of that, if I lived in Japan. Since, you know, the radiation level isn’t significantly above normal background levels in many places people live without hysteria, and was only locally dangerous even during the incident.

          Yes, it’s true, nuclear power was kind of stillborn in the US, or maybe infanticide would be a better term. One of the few cases of regulatory capture I know of where regulation of an industry was captured by people who wanted the industry to die, rather than by the industry itself.

          1. “Since, you know, the radiation level isn’t significantly above normal background levels in many places people live without hysteria”

            The background radiation is high enough to destroy the electronics of the robots they keep sending in the explore the ruins.

            1. Nobody is saying they want to live in the ruins of the power plant.

              1. … Except Brett.

    2. Don’t forget the banks and Wall Street.

  8. “Helpful analyses by … Reason’s Shikha Dalmia”

    Possible but highly, highly unlikely. Even more unhinged on immigration and Trump than Somin.

    1. Once one saw the reference to Shikha, one knew that ignorance would abound in the article!

  9. Sounds like Trump is shoring up his base for re-election. Hope he doesn’t cave to the gun ban lobby either.

  10. What’s the point of them coming here if they need public assistance?
    Don’t want to be separated? Stay in your country.

    1. Agreed. Financially, it would be cheaper to send $ and other types of aid directly to the poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free in 3rd worldistan than to allow them to come to the West. However, that inevitably wrecks their economy and creates dependency.

      1. Investment, not aid. Any society that requires outside assistance to continue its existence should be allowed to go extinct.

      2. ” Financially, it would be cheaper to send $ and other types of aid directly to the poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free in 3rd worldistan”

        The jobs have been flowing that direction for several decades. Don’t believe it? Pop down to WalMart and pick up some American-made Nike shoes and an American-made Iphone so you can make some calls while you watch your American-made flat-panel television.

        1. Your geographic definition of the 3rd world, where the immigrants are coming from, is *way* off base, if that’s where you think the iphone is made, or a flat panel television.

          1. “Your geographic definition of the 3rd world”

            So terribly sorry. Mind providing a map with the current location of 3rd-worldistan on it?

            1. Ask, and ye shall recieve : Collective name for most of the nations of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, many of which share a colonial past and are variously termed as developing, less developed, or least developed countries. Sweden, Finland and a few European countries are are included in the archaic meaning of the term, but only because they were non-aligned during the Cold War

              I added the “-stan” and an insult, but the 3rd World is commonly (sorry, but it’s common knowledge) also the parts of the world with Islam.

              1. “Ask, and ye shall recieve :”

                I asked for a map with 3rd-worldistan on it, and you provided a map that does not have 3rd-worldistan on it.

                Want to try again, or admit you’re all hot air?

  11. Since Professor Somin, who is an intellectually honest libertarian after all, suggests limitations on welfare benefits as a solution, I respectfully request that he presents his proposals for these limitations. These, of course, would include the costs of education for the children, health benefits, etc. They must be able to survive injunctions by Hawaiian Federal Judges and the entire 9th. In case such limitations are actually imposed, I am certain that Professor Somin would be eager to defend them in court.

  12. “the proper solution is not migration restrictions, but limitations on the actual welfare benefits themselves” which will never happen because political hacks have figured out that giving away free stuff = votes.

    1. By “will never happen” you mean “are already law”, presumably.

  13. “a record that gives the lie to oft-heard claims that the administration only objects to illegal immigration.”

    Doesn’t have to be a lie. Just that they are *also* trying their best to reduce legal immigration as well. After all, if you can make all immigration illegal, then all immigration is objected to quite legally.

    1. I’ll come out and say it. I don’t care about “legal” versus “illegal.” I don’t want any 85 IQ mestizos or jihadist Muslims immigrating here, whether they’re doing so legally or not.

      1. Decent folk don’t want you near them, either, but there you are.

        1. RestoreWH is a Russian troll. Not sure if it’s a ‘bot or not. I would not take its posts seriously. No one else does, after all.

          1. Right, everyone who doesn’t buy into your globalist, one world government, “Diversity is our strength” mantra is a Russian troll. Keep on believing that.

          2. ” I would not take its posts seriously.”

            Have no fear on that account.

          3. Sounds like you are describing the good Rev AK.

      2. Serious question for RWH.

        Would you be cool with a DNA test for South Americans or Mexicans, like Israel does to Russians seeking to emigrate to prove Jewishness? If they showed that they were, what, 90% white (Spanish) they would be allowed to emigrate?

        1. I’d rather just do an IQ test, but if that wasn’t available, then yes. There’s a reason that Cuban immigrants have been very successful here, while others have not. We got mostly Criollos.

          1. Cuban immigrants, the first wave, were successful because they were the capital and bourgeoisie class prior to the Revolution, regardless of racial status. They just started another business in Florida. They weren’t, also, the type of people who would accommodate themselves to a Marxist dictatorship, like later Cuban immigrants; those are the types of personalities you don’t want in a capitalist society.

            1. Agreed. I should have specified Cubans from the first wave, not the Mariel boatlift types. I agree that personalities and culture matters as well. There’s a reason why the lily white Argentina is a mess. But while white Catholics can assimilate into the white Protestant culture (ours), non-whites have a much harder time with it.

    2. The persons authorized to speak for the administration have been quite open that they’d really like to cut off immigration to just rich white people who bring their money with them.

      This approach is neither practical nor popular (to the wider population… I imagine it has some popularity among rich white people.)

      1. Sounds good to me. We don’t need more people.

        1. “Sounds good to me.”

          That is why it will fail.

  14. “I am in favor of allowing in immigrants who will be a taxpayer burden” said no winning politician ever.

    Democrats will be forced to defend their lawsuits allowing immigrants to be on welfare, GOP will win by a landslide.

  15. You are absolutely insane. We’ve been fed the lie for years that all immigrants, legal and illegal, are net boons to the economy and government budgets, and now we’re being told that we shouldn’t exclude people who will be permanent welfare cases? Were you lying then, or lying now?

    1. To quote somebody, “Embrace the healing power of ‘and’.”

  16. When I learned in 1950 that the population of our country was about 150 million – I thought, about enough. Today we have over twice that many . . . people are living in shacks and defecating in the streets. At any rate, will Somin be offering free public use of his lawn and indoor toilet facilities? If not, his agenda is suspect.

    1. WJack,
      …and when you learned that, in 1930, the population was 30 million less than in 1950, and there still were people living in shacks and defecating in the streets . . . did you think that this fact supported or weakened your argument?

      1. Except there weren’t. Even during the depression, there was basically no crime that wasn’t attributable to Prohibition/the Mafia. Why is that?

        1. “Why is that?”

          Active revisionism?

  17. 8 USC §1182 Inadmissible aliens.

    (4) Public charge
    (A) In general
    Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.
    (B) Factors to be taken into account
    (i) In determining whether an alien is inadmissible under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s-
    (I) age;
    (II) health;
    (III) family status;
    (IV) assets, resources, and financial status; and
    (V) education and skills.

    1. So with limited legal immigration slots, we’re going to prefer people who won’t go on welfare? If that is unfair, then the current policy is unfair to productive immigrants who are being denied because too many future welfare recipients arrived ahead of them.

      I haven’t taken a poll, but this new policy likely has huge majority support in the US. Fringe ideologues and deranged Trump haters won’t like it. The rest of the country will strongly approve.

      1. “So with limited legal immigration slots, we’re going to prefer people who won’t go on welfare?”

        Wouldn’t it be easier to just say that recent immigrants aren’t eligible for welfare? Oh, wait… we already do that.

        1. No, but their “citizen” thuglets are eligible.

        2. If they’re likely to have kids what difference does it make? Their kids will be citizens eligible for welfare. If you’re likely to have kids who are going to use welfare programs, we shouldn’t let you in.

          1. “Their kids will be citizens eligible for welfare.”

            So are yours. Get out.

            1. Our kids have higher average IQs than these third world invaders, so they’re much less likely to use welfare.

              1. YOUR kids won’t, unless they’re adopted.

    2. Gee, that statute really cuts across Prof. Somin’s contention that this is an “executive power grab” and “unauthorized by Congress.”

      The only reasonable conclusion is that President Trump enacted this statute unilaterally.

    3. The fact that Ilya claims that the regulation violates the statute, but doesn’t show the legal analysis, is an embarrassment to him, and frankly to the Conspiracy.

  18. Not to mention the traffic in nearly every urban area has become intolerable. And our infrastructure is crumbling. Why do we need tens of millions more people, especially low IQ, uneducated ones?

    1. They’re needed to do the jobs Americans won’t. Like voting Democratic.

      1. Pretty much.

    2. “Not to mention the traffic in nearly every urban area has become intolerable.”

      Nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded.

      1. A funny line, but not applicable here.

  19. “The Trump Administration’s New ‘Public Charge’ Rule is a Plan to Cut Immigration”

    Well,duh.

    1. Well, other than the fact that it isn’t a new rule, and it likely won’t cut the total number of legal immigrants to the US… duh.

      1. “likely won’t cut the total number of legal immigrants to the US”

        Trump is incompetent, water still wet. Details at 11.

        1. Attacking Somin’s strawman doesn’t make your point valid, JP.

          1. You’re under the impression I’m quoting Somin?

            1. You are using Somin’s magical claim that the purpose of this enforcement is to reduce the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country – his strawman.

              It is possibly you independently came up with the same strawman, and used in it in the comments of a post featuring Somin’s, but in that case it makes you look bad for both attacking your strawman as if it were a serious argument AND not having read Somin’s post that you are commenting on.

              1. Interesting claim, in that I’m quoting you. I suppose I made YOU up, too?

    2. The Trump Administration’s New ‘Public Charge’ Rule is a Plan to Cut Immigration

      Gallup reports that 150 million people worldwide would migrate to the U.S. if they were able to. U.S. law provided in 2016 for an annual limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants. Is this an argument that from the 150 million there cannot be found 675,000 annually who meet the requirements?

  20. Another rousing meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Bigoted, Cruel Immigration Policies And Practices.

    Carry on, clingers. Until you are replaced. By your betters.

    1. So you’re admitting that your primary purpose in importing Latin American mestizos is to replace us electorally?

      1. So, the mestizos are your betters? Interesting admission.

        1. Given that they’re short, generally physically unattractive, genetically unintelligent, genetically prone to violence and alcoholism, that would be a weird admission.

          1. Could we have a contest between Kirkland and RWH where they try to come up with the strongest insults they can think of against the racial groups they hate?

          2. “that would be a weird admission.”

            That’s what I said, although I used “interesting” rather than “weird”.

            So the short, unattractive and unintelligent folks are nevertheless better than you, by your admission. Must be true. Ouch.

    2. Carry on, clingers. Until you are replaced. By your betters.

      Standard Nazi fare from Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland: dividing people into Untermensch/Ubermensch, population replacement and ethnic cleansing, etc.

      1. Also like the Klan. They dream of a nation cleansed of people who aren’t like them. Same obsessed hatred, same evil, their slurs sound different but communicate the same vain malevolence.

        In the end they are predictable, thoughtless, and dull. Mentally healthy people can’t really engage. And with the news media providing a sort of reinforcing therapy-in-reverse, there’s little hope for a return to balance. It’s sad how many people are lost this way.

  21. I think a key difficulty with Professor Somin’s argument is that the rule appears to track the language of the statute pretty closely, right down to determining if immigrants are likely to be public charges as distinct from whether that actually are. For this reason, any objection to the rule would seem to be an objection to the statute.

    Courts have regularly struck down restrictions on the use of abortion for eugenics purposes as unconstitutional. In the abortion context, “eugenics is immoral” seems to be yet another morality argument of the sort the court’s have a long history of finding insufficient to justify restrictions on freedom of choice.

    Once again, why should immigration be any different? Morality has its place, yes, but it doesn’t, indeed constitutionally can’t, prevent people from making the choices they feel they need to make to get ahead in life. Nations have never been regarded as any different in this respect in their choices regarding foreigners.

    1. I have some issues with your phrasing. I presume the constitution to be a moral document in the sense that it can legitimately be enforced.

      If the Constitution were immoral, people shouldn’t be swearing or affirming allegiance to it – they should be overthrowing it. For instance, if I actually believed the Constitution legalized eugenic abortions, I would think it was an immoral document which needed replacement with another Constitution.

      As it happens, I don’t think the Constitution legalizes any kind of abortion – that’s just something some (male) judges concocted because they felt like it.

      1. In general, although I wouldn’t say the Constitution is equivalent to a generic command to “go forth and be moral,” it does reflect a perfectly legitimate moral vision when legitimately interpreted.

        1. I wouldn’t go that far, because the powers it does give Congress could easily be used in a constitutional manner that was immoral.

          But it’s certainly more consistent with moral governance than unlimited government would be.

          1. “But it’s certainly more consistent with moral governance than unlimited government would be”

            Meh.
            Most religions claim to be arbiters of moral choice, and also most of them command complete and total obedience to a deity of unlimited power that… coincidentally… has established a framework of people to carry out divine goals, here on Earth. Death to the unbelievers!

            1. That’s a particularly stupid misunderstanding of the idea of free will found in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.

              1. Let me apologize and rephrase that as plumb ignorant, and not stupid.

                1. You reserve “stupid” for yourself, then. Fair enough.

                  1. For myself, no, my initial take may still be correct, in that stupid and ignorant do have a lot of overlap (which would entail you). However, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe nobody has ever explained, your you’ve never read, the paradox of free will.

                    1. “stupid and ignorant do have a lot of overlap”

                      By which you mean none at all.

                      Ignorance can be corrected by education. Stupid is forever.

  22. I would add that the administration’s plan to massively restrict immigration based on bureaucratic determinations about potential future welfare usage is based on reasoning similar to that of early 20th century eugenics advocates, who argued that we must use the power of the state to preclude people from having children, if government experts determined that they were likely to become dependent on welfare.

    Somin’s contemptible views and statements make even Trump look like a decent human being in comparison.

    1. Part of his derangement is that he’s losing the capacity to be charitable with people who disagree with him. This is a natural consequence of thinking your own views are so self-evidently true that even people who claim to disagree with you actually agree with you about what’s the right thing to do, and are consciously choosing to do the wrong thing.

      1. ” This is a natural consequence of thinking your own views are so self-evidently true that even people who claim to disagree with you actually agree with you about what’s the right thing to do, and are consciously choosing to do the wrong thing”

        You know that reference about the splinter in my eye vs. the beam in yours? Seems applicable.

      2. Isn’t that par for the course for liberals?

        1. You mean too quote the Bible at someone while just upthread disparaging out of ignorance Biblical religions?

          Yep, pretty much.

          1. Assuming you meant to point this at me, and not the Russians, yep. Pretty much.

            1. You’re on fire…how many more inane things can you shit out in one comment thread, only time can tell.

              1. Your record is safe.

  23. Every nation limits it’s immigration and is vigilant about illegal immigration so it seems specious that the authors would cast an interest in reducing illegal immigration as a covert interest. But to suggest that financial concerns are insignificant while pointing to contrived data is also problematic.

    But their term “straining the welfare state” is also an exaggeration (linked to a WP article behind a paywall) followed by their solution, the 100% non-viable “cutting benefits” (it would have already been done if it could have been done), yields a net Gary Johnson.

    There is no logic to open borders it can only be explained using misleading arguments and unfounded evidence.

    1. There’s is no logic to your delusional fantasy that open borders have any relevance at hrhere.evan efr r

      If you also believe the “alt-left” started the violence and murder in Charlottesville, then you most certainly have a gold medal, personally signed by Donald Trump.,

      https://reason.com/2019/08/13/the-trump-administrations-new-public-charge-rule-is-a-plan-to-cut-immigration-not-reduce-burdens-on-the-welfare-state/#comments

  24. Wow! This is THE most insightful report I’ve seen, and I read a lot of news and commentary sites.

    Can Ilya win a Pulitzer, if published from this site?

    1. Duranty got a Pulitzer, so the standards aren’t that high.

  25. Shikha Dalmia? Seriously?

    I knew things were getting worse with Ilya and his posts but I didn’t realize he was scraping the bottom of the barrel for Progressive fanatics like Shikha to support his worthless contentions.

    Truly sad.

  26. “For many potential immigrants being forcibly condemned to a lifetime of poverty and oppression in Third World societies (and separated from close family members in the US, to boot), is an imposition comparable in magnitude to the mandatory sterilization once defended by Holmes and others.”

    Oh come on now. They are nothing alike. I generally agree with you that legal immigration should be much, much, easier, and not subject to central planners’ ideas of how many of people of just what kinds would be best for the country.

    But stuff like this is just ludicrous and you lose anybody with a shred of rationality by making that comparison.

  27. ” For many potential immigrants being forcibly condemned to a lifetime of poverty and oppression in Third World societies (and separated from close family members in the US, to boot), is an imposition comparable in magnitude to the mandatory sterilization once defended by Holmes and others.”

    So …. a few billion people have a right to come in, and we can do nothing about it?

    1. Wrong! We can also, in addition to letting them come to the U.S. in unprecedented numbers, start wars of liberation (like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan) in those 3rd World countries. I am sure, like when we took Paris, the people will throw flowers at our soldiers’ feet (rather than shoot at them like in Somalia) when we come to set up stable democracies in tribal backwaters.

      Colonialism is cool again!

      1. You forgot to put “stable democracies” in scare quotes.

      2. Colonialism only works if you accept that you are leading a less advanced people. You must rule them for their benefit. If you think you’re going to set up a Western style democracy among a group of 80 IQ jihadist savages, you’re going to be sorely disappointed.

      3. I thought my comment was over-the-top hyperbole, especially given away by the point about flowers vs. bullets, but then I forgot that this is the internet and there are likely people thinking we can set up stable democracies in shithole countries.

        1. Yes, I saw the hyperbole. But it’s not just on the Internet. Bush thought we could nation build, and thought so sincerely.

          1. It was a defining characteristic of the neocons. Back in the day, Reagan had it, too.

    2. They are also owed US government benefits.

      I wonder if he thinks they should get benefit checks retroactive to their birth. Or retroactive to whenever they had a hardship in their homeland. Or just whatever arbitrary number anyone wants. Why not?

  28. a record that gives the lie to oft-heard claims that the administration only objects to illegal immigration.

    This argument is disingenuous. The distinction between legal and illegal immigration is not just a matter of legal formalities — filling out the forms and waiting in line at the U.S. consulate. It is also a matter of the United States, as a sovereign power, having control over who may immigrate, based on some consistent criterion.

    Congress sets the rules of what the immigration policy is, and the Executive is supposed to carry it out. Congress enacted a rule that anyone who “at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge” is not admissible. The proposed rules simply carry out that mandate.

    If you simply ignore Congress’ mandate in the interests of open borders (wink, wink) then you have eviscerated the whole distinction between legal and illegal immigration. Perhaps Prof. Somin considers that positive. I don’t.

  29. Could someone clearly present the reasons why there should be no restriction on immigrants who would be unable or unwilling to support themselves, assuming that a reasonable test could be found to identify such people?

    Is it the principal objection that the new rules are too inclusive, in that they apply to people who really are self-supporting?

    How would the new rules reduce legal immigration? Why from among those wishing to immigrate to the U.S. would there would not be enough of qualified people to supply the number permitted to immigrate annually?

    Why would the proposed restrictions fall more heavily on certain races or religions or ethnic groups?

    1. I think the principle reason is just that it wouldn’t personally hurt the people making the argument, and the psychic benefits from knowing those people were permitted to come here would far exceed the damage to their countrymen, to the extent that matters at all.

      Open borders advocates seem positively proud to put no more value on the welfare of their fellow citizens, than they do anonymous people thousands of miles away. But somehow we fellow citizens are supposed to care about their opinions anyway.

      1. Exactly. It’s the same reason they support silly rules like “assault weapons bans” and “transgenders in bathroom” laws. They support these things precisely BECAUSE you don’t.

    2. Why would the proposed restrictions fall more heavily on certain races or religions or ethnic groups?

      Is there an implicit assumption, on the part of those claiming that this rule is racist, that certain races are inherently more likely to be excluded by the rule because they have lower ability or are less industrious?

    3. One argument seems to be that the new rules will “shift legal immigration away from Latin America and towards Europe in particular.” Is this the foundation of the charge of racism? Let’s stipulate that the new rules disfavor those without education, skills and/or a willingness to work, since it is more difficult for those people to support themselves without public assistance. Are there insufficient numbers of people with these qualities who want to emigrate from Latin America?

      Furthermore, if it is true that the education, skill and/or diligence standards in Europe are higher than those in Latin America is this because of racial differences or cultural differences? The person who asserts the former is a racist. The argument must be that the exclusion of immigrants who appear to lack the ability and willingness to support themselves without government assistance, in favor of those not so lacking, is a subterfuge since such criteria should have no bearing on qualification for immigration. But this is not true, and even if it were doesn’t a person who charges that this is racial discrimination have to assert that these differences between people have a racial foundation?

      Aren’t there plenty of potential immigrants from all races and cultures?

  30. Democrats buy votes by promising free stuff to the have nots. It’s no surprise they want to import more “have nots.”

    1. “Democrats buy votes by promising free stuff to the have nots.”

      So do Republicans. This is not exactly a revelation or recent development.

  31. “The Trump Administration’s New “Public Charge” Rule is a Plan to Cut ILLEGAL Immigration…”

    Fixed it for you. You’re welcome.

    1. Well, no, that’s just wrong. This rule is about how many and what people are allowed to LEGALLY immigrate.

      1. You could improve both legal and illegal immigration by allowing people to legally come in, and stay if they can support themselves but remove them if they can’t/won’t/don’t support themselves (or find private sponsors)

  32. I think a fair reading of the situation is that Congress passed a harsh law by past administrations interpreted and enforced it very leniently. The current interpretation seems within the plain meaning of what the law says. An administration is entitled to tighten enforcement of laws they prioritize as long as they stay within the meaning of the statute. And this does. In other words, the administration is restoring what Congress had said it wanted.

    There can be many criticisms of the Trump administration. But on this issue, flouting the law doesn’t seem to be a legitimate one here.

    It’s important to first interpret what laws mean neutrally, then say whether one agrees with their policy or not. The law itself may not be good policy. But from a neutral, plain meaning perspective, the proposed Trump administration rule is closer to what the law says than the previous rule was.

Please to post comments