Immigration

Trump's New Welfare Rule Cuts Immigration Against Congressional Will

Only wealthy immigrants will have a clear shot at being admitted or staying.

|

President Donald Trump's much-awaited "public charge" rule to discourage immigrants from using welfare was released yesterday. It was even worse than expected. Under the pretext of cracking down on welfare use by immigrants, it will constrict immigration so much that only the most well-heeled immigrants will be able to enter the United States going forward.

Basically, Stephen Miller, the anti-immigration White House aide who fathered this 800-page rule, is trying to accomplish through administrative means what he couldn't through legislative ones; namely, dramatically slashing legal immigration and transforming America's family-based immigration system into an extreme merit-based one.

The rule, which is supposed to go into effect in mid-October (though courts are likely to intervene, for now), would brand any immigrant who is 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 already here, the rule will make it harder for them to upgrade their immigration status and obtain green cards or citizenship.

That this is a complete abuse of the original understanding of the public charge law, whose purpose was to bar indigent or disabled folks ("idiots, lunatics, convicts," in the not-so-politically correct language of the times) likely to become wards of the state, is an understatement. Administrative guidance that has been in effect since 1999 interpreted this law to mean anyone who gets cash benefits through programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Social Security, provided those benefits account for 50 percent (or more) of their income.

Under the Trump administration's new rule, anyone who collects (or is likely to collect) any means-tested public benefits for more than 12 months in any 36-month period will have a strike against them when they apply for a visa, even possibly just visitor visas. Worse, given that there is no floor to the amount that immigrants have to collect to be deemed a public charge, notes Cato Institute's David Bier, in principle they could be "99.9 percent self-sufficient and still be deemed a public charge." This stipulation, Bier maintains, is worse than the administration's original proposal, which would have slapped the public charge designation on immigrants who were 95 percent self-sufficient. For a family of four at 250 percent of the poverty level, that would have worked out to $2.50 per person per day in public assistance.

Making matters worse, the public charge designation would no longer be restricted to those who collect cash benefits. Bier notes that the type of benefits considered will now include both cash and non-cash benefits—federal, state, or local. Even more diabolically, immigrants don't even have to actually collect these benefits to be denied entry or an upgrade in immigration status, they simply have to be deemed "likely" to do so.

How will this likelihood be estimated? Under current guidance, having a family who sponsors an immigrant and pledges to cover their expenses is a major plus factor. But that won't count for much under Trump's new dispensation. If someone doesn't speak English or have a job already lined up, that'll be considered a major negative factor. "The process to identify someone's likelihood to use benefits is skewed to create denials," maintains Bier. Even if low-income immigrants who are here forego benefits for themselves or their American-born children, as many of them are doing, to obtain green cards or citizenship, it may not help.

Meanwhile, any American of modest means who wants to sponsor their husband, wife, parent, or minor child—categories that constitute the vast bulk of legal, family-based immigration—to come to the United States will have a very hard time. Siblings and adult children can just forget about it. The only folks who will have a clear shot at getting in are those with high-paying jobs.

Basically, the administration is telling low-income families that they don't have a right to be together. This is family separation by bureaucratic means.

There could be a rationale for doing something this draconian if immigrants were abusing welfare. But that is not the case, contrary to nativist mythology that guides Miller and his ilk. The opposite, in fact.

As I've noted previously, the National Academy of Sciences has 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. Furthermore:

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.

If President Obama had made such aggressive use of his executive powers, Republicans would have cried bloody murder.

The administration didn't offer any estimate of how much this rule will slash legal immigration, but there is little doubt that the impact will be significant. All those who still believe that Trump opposes only illegal immigration and not immigration in general are just fooling themselves. There is almost no category of immigrants he has left un-assaulted, and his new rule disses precisely those whom the Statue of Liberty seeks to welcome.

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump Suggests 'Red Flag' Laws Be Used to Take CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo's Guns Away After Viral 'Fredo' Outburst

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. “Under the Trump administration’s new rule, anyone who collects (or is likely to collect) any means-tested public benefits for more than 12 months in any 36-month period will have a strike against them when they apply for a visa, even possibly just visitor visas.”

    I’m sorry, this is ‘bad’ why?

    What we do need: scientists, engineers, programmers, physicists, etc
    What we do not need: landscapers, dishwashers, unskilled labor

    The world has changed in the last century. The fact is, the US should cherrypick who we want to allow in, and who gets a green card. To me, this is a total no-brainer.

    Why on earth do we want immigrants who suckle at the public teat from the moment of their arrival? That is just lunacy.

    1. Agreed. This has been apart of US immigration for over 140 years, The Trump admin just provided new guidance. Anyone is welcome to the U.S. provided the can care for themselves financially and/or have a sponsor who can. Allowing recent immigrants to immediately jump on to the U.S. welfare roles will only increase the size and scope or government. People forget that for the majority of American history the welfare state did not exist.

      1. “This has been apart of US immigration for over 140 years, “

        and in the same paragraph:

        “People forget that for the majority of American history the welfare state did not exist.”

        So which is it, genius?

        And this:

        “Anyone is welcome to the U.S. provided the can care for themselves financially and/or have a sponsor who can.”

        Someone didn’t RTF. Trump undoing exactly this.

        1. Part of the verification across Ellis island was to prove one would not become a public charge. Welfare as it exists today did not exist, but forms of government assistance have existed much longer. The rule has always been to not become a leech.

        2. “So which is it, genius?”

          Both fucktard.

          Selecting the best immigrants predated welfare.

          How are you so fucking stupid that you think this is somehow a contradiction?

          1. But….but…..,Orange Man bad!!!!!

        3. the specification that immigrants be able to take care of themselves financially has been part of U.S. immigration law for more than 140 years. Welfare was only introduced in the 1960’s, does this explain it genius?

          1. Considering who you are replying to, probably not.

        4. Hey dumbshit, try reading a book that doesn’t require crayons.

        5. “So which is it, genius?”
          They aren’t mutually exclusive. Are you really that retarded?

      2. Anyone is welcome to the U.S. provided the can care for themselves financially and/or have a sponsor who can.

        Well, that’s not really the rule now–there are many, many more restrictions than that.

        1. That was more of my opinion, not law.

    2. The fact is, the US should cherrypick who we want to allow in, and who gets a green card.

      The market (in other words, the actions of free individuals) should cherry-pick who it wants in, not the welfare state or the administrative state.

      1. So no children or dependents. Agreed.

        1. Just no welfare. Bring whomever you want*, but you won’t get anything unless you work.

          * I think it’s reasonable to have criminal background checks and the like to exclude violent criminals.

          1. The problem is that the government does a very poor job at background checks. Worse, once they are in the country, Reason and the rest of the open borders crowd will be screaming to let them stay even after they have committed crimes.

            1. Pedo Jeffy certainly will. Whining about it all the way from Toronto.

              1. I thought he was suicided.

                1. That’s the other one

      2. Metazoan….Um, no. The Federal Government is absolutely entitled to determine who comes in, or does not come in. That is not a debate.

        1. Legally, sure. But from a standpoint of libertarianism/individual liberty, not really. People born here aren’t really any better (morally) than people born elsewhere.

          1. Spend some time living in Somalia and get back to us.

          2. The majority of residents of states still support keeping the US Constitution around, so Americans ARE better than non-Americans.

            1. This.

              The threat of mass immigration isn’t foreigners lining up for welfare checks, it’s *voting* for welfare checks, and in general, subverting the unique Anglo American aspects of US politics.

              The First and Second Amendments alone probably make the US unique in the world.

              Import Not Americans, Become Not America.

          3. “People born here aren’t really any better (morally) than people born elsewhere.”

            Which has nothing to do with the conversation, and is possibly the stupidest line of argument around the issue.

            1. Right?

              I don’t make these arguments because I think I’m BETTER than immigrants. I make them because I’m a CITIZEN and therefore have the benefits of BEING a citizen. If I don’t get to have a say in the way this country is administered, why does the concept of citizenship exist? Why don’t we let say…Russians have a say in the way we run the US? Heck, why to states/nations even exist? Why do property rights exist?

              1. “Why don’t we let Russians have a say in the way we run the US?”
                According to Democrats, they did in 2016.

                1. Why not? The US has certainly worked to influence elections in other countries.

                2. That’s my point…allowing non-citizens to affect our government is ONLY a problem to Democracts when it’s allegedly helping someone OTHER than the Democrats…

            2. People born to wealthy white parents who went to ivy league schools aren’t really better (morally) than people born to poor families in the ghetto.

          4. Not better morally? And you know this how?

          5. your meds are in the bathroom, bro

      3. Does this woke millennial understand anything about history, immigration law and sensible policy?

        Obviously not. Lies, distortions and virtue signalling are what matters.

      4. ..the National Academy of Sciences has 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.

        And yet the countries south of the border are passing up recruiting the migrant caravans coming north. Why would this be?

        1. And the next time I need the National Academy of Liberal Sciences to weight in on economic analysis’ I will let them know.

      5. You Libertarian ideas stop at the border. The rest of the world is playing by different rules.

      6. But by the government supporting unskilled workers, you’ve basically subsidizing companies who hire them.

    3. Atlas_Shrugged would like the government to control the labor supply, rather than letting the market work it out.

      Here is Ayn Rand on immigration:
      “You don’t know my conception of self-interest. No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any “self-interest” that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’t claim that anything others may do — for example, simply through competition — is against your self-interest. But above all, aren’t you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed?”

      Was Ayn Rand a scientist, engineer, programmer, or physicist?

      1. Nothing says free market like welfare. You called it dude. The way to prosperity is telling the entire world they are free to come here and go on welfare.

        It is like you are channeling the spirits of Ayn Rand and Hayak or something.

        1. Where in the Ayn Rand quote is there anything about welfare?

          1. The entire conversation is about welfare and immigrants. Can you at least try to be conscious when you post on here?

            1. I was replying to Atlas-Shrugged, not to what you had imagined in your head. Try to keep up.

              1. You replied directly to John. Try not to lie when you make a fool of yourself.

              2. And Atlas Shrugged point was that letting people in to then go on welfare is a really bad idea.

                Again, try to be conscious and at least sort of sober before you post.

          2. Are we now limited to only cherry picked excerpts you provide?

            1. It’s his best chance to avoid looking stupid.

              And it failed.

      2. One problem….Never once did I say I did not want immigration. I want a lot of immigration. What I said was I don’t want unskilled immigrants coming here and immediately suckle on the public teat.

        You do get points (+1) for digging out an Ayn Rand quote.

        1. Concern for the collective good over the individual by means of restricting individual liberty. Just what Ayn Rand always wanted.

          1. Concern doesn’t restrict. Laws and their enforcers do.

        2. Why would skilled people want to come here?

          Unskilled labor is what our economy craves. It does nothing but help you.

          Unless your concern is something other than the economy.

          1. Considering unskilled labor generally requires generous welfare, and non-discretionary spending on welfare is the main driver of the national debt, I would say unskilled workers are not what we need.

      3. Immigrants aren’t ‘the labor supply’.

      4. Rand: “How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed?”

        It’s astonishing that Rand could say *this* particular stupid thing.

        Apparently it’s now “me qua me” that defines the *standard* of value, not “man qua man”.

        You might be alive today because of all sorts of injustices. Does that require you to commit to those injustices in perpetuity? Shouldn’t you *all the more* seek to stamp out injustices that you yourself benefited from?

    4. ” this is ‘bad’ why?”

      Because nothing is more libertarian than total disregard for the public purse. Who doesn’t enjoy the liberty of paying ever more taxes?

    5. Yes. And robotics are going to further reduce the need for zero skilled labor. Productivity in farming is going to grow significantly in the next few years. As the cost to employ a person due to regulations and give aways goes up, the incentive to invest in robotics increases.

      We need more tradespeople, for sure. But the guys at Home Depot aren’t tradespeople.

      We need skilled everything and should be liberalizing those rules.

      The only thing we can and should do for the C. Americans is to shift supply chain from China to those countries to the extent possible. Employ them on low skilled assembly work that they are borderline qualified to do at appropriate wages, which will certainly be higher than what they get now.

      1. How about: Stop trying to dictate what “we need” to do or what “we should” do. Just let the market decide. No central authority trying to dictate how many of which type of laborer the economy “needs”. What is so wrong with that?

        1. Yea man, let’s just create one big hang holding love circle and not worry about wants and needs and dumb stuff like sovereignty. Let’s ignore the welfare state’s role in market manipulation for the greater good, ya dig?

        2. “The market” has no authority to restrict the entry of those the economy doesn’t need, nor to deport those who are here but not needed. Uselessness and unemployment in the USA is a far better life than billions of humans can hope for in their home shitholes, so without immigration restrictions and border enforcement, we would be inundated with shitholian newcomers for whom we would have no economic use. That’s why “let the market decide” can’t work. This has been explained to you repeatedly by me and others.

          1. for whom we would have no economic use

            How do you know? How does anyone know? That is the main conceit of central planning: that bureaucrats and “experts” have enough knowledge and expertise to fully understand ANY national economy, let alone the world’s biggest. And you’ve bought into it.

            It is odd that many otherwise believers in free markets suddenly turn into central planning statists when it comes to the topic of immigration.

            1. Jeff thinks letting in 1 million immigrants a year, most on lotto visas, is central planning. This is why jeff is a fucking retard.

              1. Who sets the quotas? Who sets the terms for the lottery visas? Central planners in DC do.

                Why should there be any quotas at all, Jesse?

                By the way, the 1 million figure is (roughly) the number of people who become CITIZENS each year, it is NOT the number of immigrants admitted each year.

                1. There are nearly 7 billion people on the planet. Would you like America to take them all in?
                  If not, then what is your limit, and if you have a limit, then why should the government not have their own limit. Indeed, how should the government decide which immigrants should get preference over those you do not let in.

            2. Pedo Jeffy is not even American. He pontificates from his university in Toronto.

              Worry about your own country, you flapping headed pederast.

            3. “How do you know? How does anyone know?”

              If you can completely support yourself without any resort to Government support programs, then you have economic use here. If you can’t, you do not have economic use here.

              Pretty simple, AND pretty much what the new Trump Admin guidance says.

              See Jeff, not so hard!

          2. Your implicit assumption is that millions of people would come here, do nothing, be a drag on everyone and everything, and make America a worse place.

            Sure, that could happen.

            It could also happen that millions of people come here, do something useful, and make America a better place.

            It could also happen that millions of people come here, fail, and leave, making America no worse off than before.

            It could also happen that some uncountable permutations of the above scenarios, plus ones that neither of us could conceive of yet, could happen.

            I don’t know what will happen. You don’t know what will happen. Yet you are UTTERLY POSITIVE that allowing people to exercise their liberty will make people worse off.

            1. So you ignore the studies showing 60% of households led by immigrants use some form of government program? Of course you do.

              1. This has been explained to you many times before, but hey, I’ll try one more time.

                In that same study you love to cite, it shows that, when compared on the same basis of similar socio-economic backgrounds, immigrants and native-born households consume about the same amount of welfare.

                This destroys your narrative about how immigrants are somehow inherently inferior and predisposed to sucking off the government dole, because they’re all socialists from Venezuela or something.

                1. That you think this refutes his point is hilarious.
                  You’re a joke

                2. It doesn’t matter if they use less social services than citizens, if they weren’t here they would consume zero social services.
                  Further, by driving down wages for unskilled labor, they increase the use of social services by unskilled citizens.

                3. Pedo Jeffy, you do t explain anything to us. We explain it to you. And you’re too stupid to understand anything complicated.

                  You’re just some nosy Canadian anyway.

                  1. Jeff, why don’t you toddle off and tell Trudeau how Canada should do it. He can explain his ideas about bribes and corruption from the vantage of someone who truly understands it. You can tell him how he is all wrong and the Canadian economy would be so much better if they took all these immigrants in the US and welcomed them into Canada.

                    Then you can leave the US Citizens to to discuss what US policies should be.

            2. “It could also happen that millions of people come here, do something useful, and make America a better place.

              “It could also happen that millions of people come here, fail, and leave, making America no worse off than before.

              And if they had to stand on their own and NOT be on any sort of welfare provided by forced extraction of funds from citizens, I’d say good luck and power to them! If they want to come here with a “safety net” provided by taxpayers, no thanks.

        3. chem….I’ll take that one = What is so wrong with that?

          You ask a fair question; I shall answer. Simply put, the elected representatives of our Republic make the call on who gets in, under what conditions. That comes under their article I power. The ‘free market’ is meaningless in this context.

          From a moral standpoint, what is the problem with the USA choosing who enters, and who does not. There is nothing inherently immoral denying entry.

          1. 1. Article 1 allows Congress to set the rules of naturalization, not immigration.
            2. Just because Congress permits a certain action, doesn’t mean that Congress MUST undertake that course of action.
            3. The moral case for the free market is that it permits individuals to exercise their liberty with as minimal hindrance from the state as possible. This is just as true with a labor market as it is with any other market. To the extent that rules stifling individuals’ liberty to engage in free commerce that does not harm anyone else are immoral, they are just as immoral when those rules are applied to labor.

            1. Chem….Sorry chief, but the Federal government does in fact have the authority to set immigration. You’re meandering away from your original assertion that I challenged. Stop trying to move the goalpost.

              This is not a labor issue, nor is it a moral issue. This is a straight up exercise of enumerated power. The Congress made the law, which is their Article I power, and then delegated to the Executive how best to enforce it (using their Article II power).

              If you want to make the case the market should decide, then I suggest you carefully think through your argument. I don’t think you have. The free market is automating away unskilled labor as quickly as possible. Whether by design or happenstance, the rules change contemplated now will change it so we get more skilled immigrants coming in….which is what the free market wants.

              Like I said before…

              What we do need: scientists, engineers, programmers, physicists, etc
              What we do not need: landscapers, dishwashers, unskilled labor

              1. Atlas, this has been explained to Jeff multiple times. He has made up his mind no matter actual facts. He lives in a world of what if instead of reality.

                1. Jesse…I guess I have to try. I mean, at least here we can have a free and open exchange of ideas (can’t do that in most of the world) and try to persuade. Maybe I make one point that resonates. Who knows. 🙂

                2. And Jesse is wrong. No central authority should be planning the economy based on what they arrogantly believe the economy “needs”, whether it be food, housing, or labor.

                  1. As soon as the government stops distorting the free market for labor by forcing me to pay for welfare benefits, I’ll agree to stop advocating that we distort the market by not having open borders.

                  2. Fuck off you pederast Canadian. You’re not even American.

                  3. So Jeff, since you are Canadian citizen, and Canada also limits immigration, why don’t you take care of that first After you get that all taken care of, you can show us how well it works.

                    In the meantime, let the US citizens take care of the US.

              2. Sorry chief, but the Federal government does in fact have the authority to set immigration. You’re meandering away from your original assertion that I challenged. Stop trying to move the goalpost.

                EVEN IF the Federal government has the authority to do something, it does not necessarily follow that the Federal government has an OBLIGATION to do that thing.

                For example, the Federal government has the authority to levy income taxes. That does not necessarily mean that the Federal government has an OBLIGATION to levy income taxes. Most of us around here would prefer that the Federal government not exercise its authority to levy income taxes.

                Same deal with immigration. Even if you think the government has the authority to restrict immigration, it does not mean that the government OUGHT to restrict immigration.

                What we do need: scientists, engineers, programmers, physicists, etc
                What we do not need: landscapers, dishwashers, unskilled labor

                Huh, really? My elderly neighbors could really use some “unskilled labor” to maintain their yard. They have no use for scientists or engineers.

                It is the arrogance of the central planning mindset to believe that some panel of bureaucrats or experts can in any way accurately decide what any national economy “needs”, let alone the world’s biggest economy.

                And back to your original question – from a moral standpoint, arbitrary immigration restrictions infringes on my freedom of association, and freedom of contract.

                1. EVEN IF the Federal government has the authority to do something, it does not necessarily follow that the Federal government has an OBLIGATION to do that thing

                  Hey, dumbshit, if the government has the authority to do something, it’s only a matter of time before they exercise their obligation to do so.

                  For example, the Federal government has the authority to levy income taxes. That does not necessarily mean that the Federal government has an OBLIGATION to levy income taxes

                  Irrelevant, since the federal government has been doing so for over 100 years.

                2. So they have to come to you for you to have “freedom of association”? You need to be accommodated?

                  Haha

                3. “For example, the Federal government has the authority to levy income taxes. That does not necessarily mean that the Federal government has an OBLIGATION to levy income taxes. Most of us around here would prefer that the Federal government not exercise its authority to levy income taxes.
                  NOT the same deal with immigration.
                  Most of us around here would prefer that the Federal government exercise its authority to control immigration.

                4. Jeff, do you go to other countries that have rules and borders and bitch about restrictions on your “freedom of association”, or is it just one?

            2. Article I Section 9

              1. Train…. 🙂

                1. … in Vain.

            3. Jeff, employers (seldom) import labor. Rather, the labor shows up uninvited, and is willing to work for less, so employers hire them. The market doesn’t import labor, it merely reacts to the supply of labor available. The exception is for highly skilled immigrants, who are indeed imported, but whom would not be effected by the new rules.

            4. There is no free market on labor as long as the government intervenes with such things as minimum wage laws and welfare payments for those not working.

        4. Just as soon as you get rid of the 100% of the welfare state, I’ll say let them all in. Sink or swim on their own, citizens too. Let the market decide. So long as the government keeps forcing me to pay into welfare benefits I’m going to be 100% against increasing the pool size by importing poverty.

          1. So long as the government keeps forcing me to pay into welfare benefits I’m going to be 100% against increasing the pool size by importing poverty.

            If this is your actual sincere position, then I expect you to adhere to it.

            This means, not “importing poverty” when that poverty happens to come from native-born citizens, either.

            So native-born couples below a certain income threshold should have to get government permission before “importing poverty” in the form of having a child. Right?

            1. Quit lecturing Americans on what you want to see happen here. You’re a fucking Canadian. And your country is even more restrictive than the US.

            2. Chemjeff international communist strikes again!

        5. Yeah. Let in tens of millions. If it turns out the economy doesn’t “need” them? Too late, right?

          1. Jeffy promises us that if they turn out not to be needed, they will pack and go back to Malawi.

      2. “As the cost to employ a person due to regulations and give aways goes up, the incentive to invest in robotics increases.”

        Also tax policy.

        We tax labor and not assets. Purchasing robots isn’t subject to payroll and income taxes.

        1. I’d love for someone to explain to us how payroll and income taxes aren’t the same as internal tariffs, and are preferable to external tariffs.
          Yes, the US is picking winners and losers. Their choices are the ruling class and foreigners to win, The People of the US to lose

    6. I would note that many countries do this. Australia, Canada, Japan just to name a few. They won’t let you in if you can’t support yourself.

      1. “It’s only racist when Americans do it”

    7. Yup.

      And, what’s more, this doesn’t actually sound all that different from the rules in place when my wife immigrated from the Philippines back in 2006. The only reason she could get that visa was that I pledged to support her, and could demonstrate an adequate income for doing it.

      “Immigrants are a financial benefit to the country, and how dare you demand this actually be true!” doesn’t really sound like a persuasive line to push.

    8. Because Shikha is a dumb twat?

      1. You are giving Shitma to much credit.

    9. BS. Let me fix it for you:
      What we do need: scientists, engineers, programmers, physicists, etc
      What we also need: landscapers, dishwashers, unskilled labor
      What we do not need: freeloaders, parasites

      It’s as simple as that.

    10. 8 USC* section 1182 Inadmissible aliens.
      *United States Code

      (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. 8 U.S. Code § 1182. Inadmissible aliens

        f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

        Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

      2. “Rule of law so racist!”

    11. its not, the author is an intellectual dilettante

    12. You have it backwards atlas

      We in the collective have more than enough scientists et. al.

      Just looking where I live in a near full employment economy. Gardeners, roofers, food service, chicken pluckers, agriculture. I know people struggling to find labor in these areas.

      More skilled, plumbers, electrical, hvac, nursing and other medical, carpenters, machinists, those fields are facing worker shortage.

      To think that the government can distribute labor any better than the supply of bread or toilet paper is socialism at its worst. Venezuela.

  2. Next up: Lets deny immigration to anyone who doesn’t have a net worth of at least one million dollars.

    1. That is a great idea but sadly unlikely to ever happen.

      1. It’s actually a really shitty idea that would exclude a lot of talented people from coming here.

        1. It is a great idea. VISAs into the US are valuable. Let the market decide how much they are worth. Who are you to decide who is talented or not.

          1. Instead of setting a dollar amount, we could hold an auction. Set the quota for immigrants for the year, then sell the spots to the highest bidders. Let the market set the price.

            1. I don’t see any issue with that at all.

            2. I’m fine with that.

            3. It’d have to be a Dutch Auction, though. I’d think.

              1. Wouldn’t that be cultural appropriation?

          2. I’ll decide that the yacht-jumping spawn of Saudi kleptocrats are not by definition talented because they have money.

            1. No, but they can buy you a lot of trinkets in exchange for tapping your ass. And we know you love to go shopping for trinkets.

          3. I have to agree with blardo in that if you want talent, don’t set a dollar value. The two do not relate. Perhaps an exam in whatever field they in.

            1. Who can mow a larger surface area in a set number of minutes?

              1. That guy. I want him.

                It really does not matter if you cut grass or cut DNA.

                Do not understand why some people here do not get that.

    2. That’s how they do it in the Cayman Islands.

      1. It’s how canada sells some visas.

        1. 500k and buying a property to improve get it done in Italy.

      2. Can we get the rest of the tax laws of the Cayman Islands, too?

    3. And for the next, next up, let’s revoke the citizenship and deport all naturalized citizens with a net worth of less than one million dollars.

      1. They revoke citizenship for ex-Nazis who fundamentally lied on their citizenship application.

        The precedent is set.

        1. And if we continue down the path, then we can get rid of “birth-right citizenship” as well, and really get rid of all the people we don’t like. Because anyone who isn’t a millionaire is clearly not a “real American.” (sarc font off)

          1. Dumbass, birthright citizenship is a policy, not part of the 14th amendment.
            You can look at the arguments made by those who wrote it.
            Might interfere with your feelz though

            1. I never said it was part of the 14th amendment. I never even mentioned the 14th amendment.

              1. So you’ve no clue what you’re talking about but are nonetheless a big proponent of it.
                Sounds about right.
                Get your feelz on!

                1. LOL. You are too funny. I am very familiar with the 14th amendment, and with the constitution. I was just seeing if you are a collectivist and a statist. Congradulations. You get a “A.”

          2. I do like the idea of ridding America of hardcore progressive democrats.

  3. “Administrative guidance that has been in effect since 1999”
    Um, administrative guidance is just that. It can be changed by the Executive branch.
    BTW: Why are her links to other articles she has written, or other position papers that support her. How about linking to specific things like the actual law Congress passed. Or how about an administrative summary of the actual rule that Trump is enacting. All we get is BS and opinion with nothing to point to as basic facts.

  4. Well here we go: Immigration or the Welfare State and reason has made its predictable choice.

      1. That’s Offficial Reason Dogma.

        Nick:
        In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.

        Watching The Brink made me think that for all the other differences Reason has with the socialist magazine Jacobin, it may matter far more that we share a belief in open borders.

        https://reason.com/2019/04/12/steve-bannons-economic-nationalism-is-th/

  5. This piece should be bookmarked and linked to every time reason claims they are against the welfare state and don’t support welfare for anyone who wants to come and get it.

    1. Shika clearly does not think it is your money.

      The only question is why KMW thinks this article belongs here?

    2. This is a beautiful way to ruin the integrity of everything this publication supposedly stands for, and the final ode to OBL. I can no longer tell the difference between Reason and satire.

      Good riddance.

    3. reason staff claim that every immigrant is hard working and are nothing but a net gain for the USA.

      This immigration rule makes that more of the truth.

      reason SCREACHES!

      1. Yup. If Shikha’s position is true, this shouldn’t affect any of those “value-added” immigrants.

        And frankly, as hysterical as she is about how “onerous” these standards are, it’s STILL incredibly generous: 12 out of 36 months…that’s a FULL year out of three…imagine living as a CITIZEN on the dole for 30 years out of the 90 you were alive…

    4. Agreed.

      I don’t have a firm stance one way or another concerning immigration other than unlimited immigration is a really bad idea. I come from a city of immigrants. My wife is an immigrant. I don’t see immigration as a bad thing in general, but open borders and unlimited immigration will cause a shitload of real problems. And if you’re gonna come here, no one ought to get here and be handed my fucking money.

      The argument that not taking in immigrants who will need welfare is bad (even if it’s just a little bit of welfare!) is fundamentally un-libertarian down to the core. Fuck that argument. It’s just plain stupid.

      1. Agreed.

    5. The US shall be the Welfare State to the World, becauseOpen Borders Uber Alles!

      “Libertarian Moment”

  6. I usually agree with pro-open borders articles. I don’t agree with this one at all, for multiple reasons. First of all, more people on welfare is frequently an argument used by nativists to justify restriction of free movement of people. This is a great way around that argument–enforce the prohibition on receipt of welfare for immigrants. Second, the notion that “only wealthy people” will be able to immigrate is absurd. What of all the poor immigrants from the late 19th century (like my ancestors) who had no welfare to draw on? Lots of people come here to work, not collect welfare.

    In general, this reform is very good, and helps make the case that open immigration benefits the economy, not the welfare state.

    1. Second, the notion that “only wealthy people” will be able to immigrate is absurd. What of all the poor immigrants from the late 19th century (like my ancestors) who had no welfare to draw on? Lots of people come here to work, not collect welfare.

      You are right, but the proposed rule change would bar immigrants who are “likely to qualify” for welfare. So poor immigrants would all fall under this category even if they did not accept welfare. They would not even have an opportunity to prove themselves by working hard and pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

      1. Getting harder and harder to pretend you are against global welfare… How far will you bend before you break?

      2. Apparently this not so subtle point is lost on all the Trumpalos. “Reason support welfare, hur-hur!!”
        No, it doesn’t.

        1. Per the cited report:

          For the 2011-2013 period, the net cost to state and local budgets of first generation adults is, on average, about $1,600 each.

          OoOoOpppppps…. Looks like Reason is admitting as much

          More:

          In contrast, second and third-plus generation adults create a net positive of about $1,700 and $1,300 each, respectively, to state and local budgets.

          So tell me… how much welfare should we force this generation to cough up for the long term globalist bullshit you leftists call utopia?

      3. As I said below, maybe I misunderstood. For me, the ideal is no welfare state and open borders; as I understood this I saw it as a compromise in that direction. But if it is the case that it can be used to deny immigrants because of “pre-crime” then that is bad.

        1. Agreed in principle.

          I’m okay with immigration, but to enable more immigration (or even to stay at the present level), we have to dismantle the welfare state. Only then can we be sure that those who come here are supporting themselves (or at least not taking my money) and not being a net drag on the economy.

  7. I heard much this same argument on NPR yesterday – this new prohibition against welfare recipients that’s been around for years and years and years is going to devastate tens of millions of immigrants, almost none of whom are welfare recipients. This is more proof of Trump’s evil racism because, while he claims that this is meant to disincentivise immigrants coming here just for the welfare benefits, we all know it’s just because he hates brown-skinned people and this is just a way to keep millions of immigrants out of the country. Almost none of whom ever apply for welfare benefits.

    1. Reason is forever arguing that immigrants don’t use welfare, unlike those lazy good for nothing natives. Yet, somehow denying immigrants welfare is going to mean none of them can come.

      It is almost as if reason has no integrity on this issue or something.

      1. These new rules ban people that would qualify for welfare, and not people that actually are on welfare. When immigrants first come here, they have nothing, so of course they all qualify for welfare. That doesn’t mean they go on welfare. So banning those that would qualify for welfare basically bans most immigrants.

        1. Maybe I misunderstood. I thought that “likely to become a public charge” meant that there was no reasonable prospect of that person sustaining him/herself, not that at this very moment the person could apply for food stamps were it legal. If you’re right, then I actually think this rule is not very good.

          1. He’s not right. He’s in fact, completely wrong.

            1. Yeah, he’s wrong. Dalmia’s other article has more specifics

              the Trump plan breaks down benefits into two different categories. One is benefits that “can be monetized”—i.e., that have a dollar value attached to them—such as TANF, SSI, food stamps, and Section 8 housing benefits. The other is that cannot be monetized: Medicaid, low-income Medicare Part D assistance, and subsidized housing.

              https://reason.com/2018/09/25/trump-attempts-a-sweeping-reduction-of-l/

              This is all about people already on the government teat.

              1. How could people be on government welfare when they haven’t even arrived in this country?

                1. You do understand that all the “or is likely” asides in this article are pure speculations – from Dalmia, from NPR, and from Bier at CATO, don’t you?

                  Meanwhile the only actual reality is the effect on potential changes in status for those who have already been here. Which is exactly what the older Dalmia article more accurately represents.

                  IOW, this is a new attempt at spin because the old arguments didn’t work.

                  Willful, or gullible?

        2. No. it bans people who have used welfare or applied for welfare.

          When immigrants first come here, they have nothing, so of course they all qualify for welfare.

          Really? That is the most racist thing I have ever read. This is going to come as a surprise to you but immigrants actually come here with skills and money. Not all brown people are destitute. Why do you think they are? It never fails, scratch a fucking leftist and you will find a racist. Sorry dude, but the days of the white man’s burden are over.

          So banning those that would qualify for welfare basically bans most immigrants.

          Because all immigrants are poor and penniless and desperate. That is just what brown people are. Go post on Storm Front or something. It is not just how racist you are, it is how casual you are about it. Racism and the absolutely certainty that every brown person in the world is penniless and in need of help from the benevolent white leftist is just the air you breath.

          1. Holy shit, John, you are insane.

            1. You are a racist. How is thinking most immigrants are penniless anything but racism? It is disgusting.

            2. Chipper, quit being such a racist!

          2. +100 John

            These Lefties don’t even realize that they are the racists who think Brown people need White people’s money.

            1. +1000 more. My neighbor immigrated legally from Brazil, one of the first things he did when he and his family arrived was buy a house in a $500K+ neighborhood. He doesn’t have much truck with illegal immigrants, BTW, after he had to wait in line and pay to get things done legally.

              1. Ever notice how legal immigrant voices are generally absent from illegal immigrant promotion and advocacy pieces?
                There’s a reason for that – it fucks up the narrative

        3. “These new rules ban people that would qualify for welfare, and not people that actually are on welfare”

          Hey dick head, how can any of them be on welfare when you’re constantly stupidly lying that none of them ever use welfare?

        4. “so of course they all qualify for welfare. That doesn’t mean they go on welfare.”

          You really have to be brainwashed or mentally challenged to believe humans aren’t humans

          1. Just link to one bit of credible data that immigrants drain the welfare systems.

            You guys are kind of relying on this claim for your entire anti-freedom stance on this matter. So surely there must be iron-clad data, and, for a bonus, it must be such a dire circumstance that you think it’s worth an exception to a philosophy of individual freedom.

            I’ll wait for the link.

            1. Omg, Jeff. It’s basic supply and demand: an increase in the supply of (unskilled) labor will necessarily decrease the cost (wages) of unskilled labor, thereby decreasing the income of unskilled laborers, thereby increasing their use of social services.

              1. I’m not Jeff, and I asked for a link.

            2. The stats are in the link to the study Shikha posted, first generation costs state and local governments up to 50 billion, second and third generation are net benefit. And all that depends on our ability to limit migration, who knows what it’ll cost if all 20 million people who wanted to come here all did so in a generation

              1. And I’d be real interested in seeing the stats split by legal vs illegal immigrants.
                I have a hunch that illegal immigrant generations don’t stack up so well

            3. Why should anyone do this for you AGAIN? You pull the same shit over and over, and can be expected to change the subject or resort to ad hominim attacks when refuted.

              Don’t go away mad, just go away.

    2. Obama deported 3 million brown skin people. He was an evil racist.

  8. The same publication that supported Obama creating the DACA program over the objection of Congress is now concern about a President ignoring the will of Congress.

    Does completely lacking any intellectual integrity or consistency ever get old? Just a little bit?

    1. Just Shikha, Matt Welch, Tucille, The jacket, KWM, Peter Suderman, Jeese Walker, Ronald Bailey, Jacob Sullum, ENB, Scott Shackford, Robby Soave, Britches, Eric Boehm.

      1. Thank god for Stossel.

  9. “Only wealthy immigrants will have a clear shot at being admitted or staying.”

    Feature, not bug.

  10. Just change the laws so that only citizens can receive public assistance. Problem solved.

    1. They pretty much did that in 1996 only to see Obama ignore the law.

      1. Surprised reason isnt up in arms about the rule change to have the government actually start fining sponsors when those who were sponsored start using public welfare. Go after sponsors and the lotto visas will decrease quickly.

  11. Would that conservatives spent half the effort they spend on trying to keep out immigrants on reducing the welfare state…

    1. Isn’t keeping people who want to be on welfare out of the country reducing the welfare state?

      Also, isn’t having a job the best way to get off welfare? I am pretty sure it is. So, letting in millions of new workers and ensuring that the labor market is just as secure as there being no one else in the entire world more desperate than you for the job you have is probably not the best way to end the welfare state. Just saying.

      1. Yes, it is reducing the welfare state. I meant my comment more generally and left out the context. What I find obnoxious is the constant whining about immigrants with the reason being “welfare” and virtually no effort being spent to meaningfully reduce the welfare state. Many conservatives just throw up their hands and say “can’t be done.”

        As to your second point, that is a different reason for opposing immigration (protectionism). It’s sort of a welfare program in its own right, but at least it admits the reason people don’t want immigrants (and that that reason has literally nothing to do with libertarianism).

        1. It is as much of a welfare program as paying less taxes is a welfare program.

          Regardless, in a true open borders situation, it is difficult to imagine how anyone who is not an absolute super star with a very irreparable skill would have any job security at all. Only a Libertarian could fail to understand why depriving people of any economic security would cause them to be more inclined to look to the government for that security.

          1. John I disagree.

            I have a skill set. Branded, certified by federal and state boards, years to attain and maintain.

            I am not by any means a superstar. Are you?

            I work for a living. I have no such thing as job security. The person I hire to do any job, the bug guy, does not either.

            You are superior to the bug guy right? Nope he really controls the ants and critters far better than I can. He knows about his thing I know about mine. So we exchange pieces of paper, seashells whatever and everything works out.

            Get it? And I could care less where the bug guy was born, what color he is, or what papers he has. He is great at his job and always a pleasure to work with.

            1. Yeah. But wouldn’t it be nice if a citizen could have that job at a wage that reflects the cost of living in the US, rather than only paying $15 bucks an hour because that seems like mad money to a guy used to making $15 bucks a day?
              When you import poverty, you get more poverty.

        2. Metazoan….I personally liked Milton Friedman’s approach of a negative income tax in order to get rid of the welfare state.

          1. No no no no no! Any income tax (positive or negative) requires an intrusive police state to enforce. A police state which can always check someone’s personal finances without a warrant from a court. Any libertarian should be appalled by the very mention of an income tax.

    2. Well, back channel open border efforts have to be fought. Maybe if the open borders clowns shut the fuck up and reformed welfare first, conservatives wouldn’t have to waste time fighting them.

    3. Boy you sure nailed it, it’s conservative and libertarian opposition that keep us from cutting welfare.

      1. Actually, it is, since most conservatives do next to nothing to reform SS/Medicare/Medicaid, which is by far the biggest part of the welfare state. Libertarians have no power, so I don’t know what you want from us.

        1. So you’re just ignoring all of the blue state lawsuits suing the trump administration for allowing states to put in work rules for those programs?

        2. Us?

          You are not fooling anybody with that pose.

      2. To be fair, when the Republicans had the House, Senate, and Presidency, I didn’t see too much reform. Bill Clinton signed a major welfare reform bill. Maybe it takes Nixon to go to China.

        1. The House under Gingrich was much featured much conservative republican members than today.

  12. “There is almost no category of immigrants he has left un-assaulted, and his new rule disses precisely those whom the Statue of Liberty seeks to welcome.”

    Excellent analysis. It’s absolutely infuriating how alt-right white nationalists ignore the Statue of Liberty. Such lawless, un-American behavior. But what else do you expect from people whose ultimate loyalty is to Russia?

    1. The good news is that the Koch / Reason position on immigration continues to gain support among mainstream Democrats. Senator Dick Durbin explains:

      Jobs processing meat and poultry are hot, dirty, monotonous, and dangerous. Across America immigrants have always taken these jobs. ICE raids should focus on those who are a threat to our safety, not those who work hard every day to put food on our tables.

      Keep this in mind whenever Democrats half-heartedly criticize “the rich” or “the corporations.” Fundamentally, the modern Democratic Party actually supports the billionaire agenda of importing cheap labor.

      #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders

      1. Shows how much he knows. Meat processing plants aren’t hot, they are more like walk-in refrigerators so the meat won’t spoil.

        1. A buddy of mine, years ago, and his wife, took a temp job at a produce processing plant. She wore inadequate footwear, so he swapped with her. Within an hour he had to go to the hospital for hypothermia and frostbite.

    2. lawless? ummm, that’s what the illegal immigrants are doing. Remind me which other countries have open borders and no immigration restrictions. Thanks.

    3. Well, the Statue of Liberty is not legally binding, so…

      1. It’s a gift from the French in fact. Who know a thing about being invaded.

        1. Imagine if I made this joke about a black or brown country known for being invaded. Would it be racist? I have no idea.

  13. In general, it doesn’t seem to matter what the laws on immigration are. Every president just does whatever the fuck he wants to, the only limit being how much political heat he can stand.

    1. “Every president just does whatever the fuck he wants to, the only limit being how much political heat he can stand.”

      Yep, Trump has certainly been able to do whatever the fuck he wants, nobody getting in his way, nobody at all.

      BTW what color is the sky on your planet? And is there enough oxygen?

      1. I dont think he reached the section on the judicial branch in his fifth grade civics text and isnt aware of all of those national injunctions.

        1. He and Metazoan seem to have very specific lapses in their political memories.

          Maybe that confusion is part of the reason they are able to think themselves libertarians…

    2. Well, on immigration it seems President’s have been give wide latitude:

      8 U.S. Code § 1182. Inadmissible aliens

      (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

      Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

      Of course, that being an ACTUAL law, which Congress duly enacted, doesn’t stop people from filing lawsuits and courts saying the President can’t exercise this law and do EXACTLY what the law says he can do.

      1. Ah, not President’s…Presidents.

  14. If the poor and uneducuted immigrants pay $150,000 more in taxes than he or she (or in between) would consume in benefits over their lifetime. Think of the giant bonanza if the US lets educated and productive immigrants in. And pay back would be much faster.

    Dang. why didn’t we think about that before? Oh wait, we did. It’s called legal immigration

  15. I’d like to thank Reason for finally putting to print what the comment section has been saying since Trump got elected: you care more about globalism than you do America, more about immigrants than American citizens, and more about virtue signalling progressivism than you do about the reality of our welfare state.

    Enjoy your irrelevance

    1. you care more about globalism than you do America

      Here is a news flash. Liberty is not a uniquely American concept. Liberty is universal. So yeah if you don’t believe that all human beings, even non-Americans, have inherent liberty then you don’t belong in these forums.

      1. “Liberty is universal.”

        What’s your address? I’ll get you a one way ticket to Somalia.

        This country currently contains 20 percent of the WORLDS immigrants. If that stat alone doesn’t shut you the fuck up nothing will. This country is the most prosperous sovereign nation in the history of the world.

        I could literally go on all day. You don’t appreciate that your very existence depends on the success of this country, and there does not exist a better place for libertarians to thrive.

        1. You don’t appreciate that your very existence depends on the success of this country

          No doubt the British loyalists said the same thing about Britain circa 1775, concerning those pesky rebels. “That Thomas Paine doesn’t realize how good he has it! Why doesn’t he just sit down, shut up, and pay his tea taxes to the King as every good loyal subject ought to?”

          A just government is supposed to maintain and protect the liberty of the people. An unjust government abridges and undermines the liberty of the people. How do immigration restrictions maintain and protect the liberty of the people, rather than abridges and undermines the liberty of the people?

          1. A just government is supposed to maintain and protect the liberty of the people

            If you really think the founders intended for their government to protect the liberty of the entire world’s population, you’re dumber than I thought.

            1. It’s pretty shocking that he keeps finding ways to demonstrate hes dumber than we thought.

            2. If you really think the founders intended for their government to protect the liberty of the entire world’s population, you’re dumber than I thought.

              We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

              1. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

                I don’t see anything in there about securing the Blessings of Liberty for the entire planet, you dumbshit.

                1. I do see the whole “all men are created equal” thing, and the whole thing about a just government is one that is created to secure these unalienable rights.

                  By the founders’ own words, the actions of a just government must go beyond the Constitution’s own preamble. What the Constitution sets forth is just a minimum in terms of protecting liberty.

                  In your view, do non-citizens have any liberty at all?

                  1. “non-citizens have any liberty at all?”

                    Why does non-citizen’s (or citizen’s) liberty have to be funded at my expense…at the expense of my liberty by force?

                  2. “all men are created equal”

                    Not part of the Constitution. It was part of the Declaration of Independence.

                  3. Just because all men are created equal, doesn’t mean the US government has an obligation to protect the liberty of every fucking person on the planet.

                    That’s how you get 30 years of war in the Middle East.

                  4. By the founders’ own words, the actions of a just government must go beyond the Constitution’s own preamble.

                    Not the US government. It’s not our responsibility to secure liberty for 7 billion people, you globalist tard.

                  5. So you support multiple preemptive wars and a policy of regime change for 90% of the world.
                    Good to know

                2. It’s right there “…for the United States of America.”

              2. And note that “government’s” just powers (the same government you like to complain is coercive) is derived “from the consent of the governed,” not “the consent of the governed and people who don’t live here”.

          2. if those people will vote to expropriate the others property/money for their welfare gains, yes it is pretty easy to understand

          3. Actually, taxes went down under the Tea Act, it was the fact that the colonists had no say about the act that caused the anger.

        2. Pedo Jeffy’s Address is somewhere in Toronto. He is a Canadian college student who apparently used to be Cytotoxic.

          So fuck him and his pedophile ways.

      2. “Liberty is universal.”

        What is the flag of Liberty? Because in Hong Kong, the protesters are waving the AMERICAN FLAG

        Not the UN flag, not the EU flag, not the Mexican flag or the Canadian flag or the penniless Guatemalan flag…. Wonder why that is?

        1. Do you understand that by passing laws restricting people from coming here, the government is restricting the liberty of BOTH non-citizens AND citizens?

          1. False.

            1. True.

              1. False.

                1. So a law that forbids employers from hiring employees who lack the proper immigration papers, does not restrict the liberty of the employer?

                  1. Pedo Jeffy, we’ve been through this dozens of times before and yet you still pull your discredited bullshit.

                    You should really commit suicide, before your efforts cause another American child to be raped.

          2. I am a citizen my rights have not been infringed

          3. Do you understand that by passing laws taxing people to pay for welfare benefits, the government is restricting the liberty of BOTH non-citizens AND citizens?

            1. It’s always been my argument to, in this order:
              1- reduce welfare by 95 percent
              2- allow for a more open immigration policy

              Jeff always wants to skip to 2 without dealing with 1, and can’t see the problem with that

      3. Except the chinese right Jeffrey?

      4. “”Liberty is universal”‘

        Keep that in mind if you are caught drunk in Dubai.

        Kidding aside. Liberty does involve sucking the government teat. Every country, every single one, has a right to determine who receives tax dollars in the form of welfare. Even citizens are not excluded.

    2. Yes. I’m beginning to think Nick and Shikha are the same person. Its true that global cronies think that some 60% effective tax welfare states have more freedom than the U.S. Freedom to seize other’s assets!

      1. I’m beginning to think that Chemjeff and Shikha are the same person.

        1. I’d have a whole lot more respect for her if that were true, Jeff spends a ton of time in the comments section and takes a ton of shit

          1. Emphasis on it being shit. And the same discredited arguments over and over again.

  16. it will constrict immigration so much that only the most well-heeled immigrants will be able to enter the United States going forward.

    Bet it won’t. How about Shikha Dalmia ponies up a dollar for every poor, unskilled, uneducated, welfare dependent that comes into our country, never to leave, from this point forward.

  17. Shiksa you ignorant slut…

    1. Do you actually have evidence on the slut part? I mean, the ignorant part I get ….

  18. his new rule disses precisely those whom the Statue of Liberty seeks to welcome.

    Well it’s about time he gets rid of THAT illegal immigrant too. She’s been sucking on the public teat now for 100 years. She never received either a visa – not as a mime or a poet or even as a very large lady in a toga – or citizenship via a naturalization ceremony.

    I can see why Trump gets pissed off at other illegal immigrants when he had to see that illegal for decades from his Tower – in the middle of New York Harbor flouting our residency laws and, worse, spreading propaganda encouraging other illegals.

    Send her back to France.

    1. How many AMERICAN mimes or poets or very large ladies in a toga does that ‘Statue of Liberty’ have to put out of work before we stand up and say No Mas? In English of course.

  19. What is most sad to see in this current age – not specifically about the welfare discussion per se, but just generally – is how the perception of American opportunity has turned from being this boundless, limitless idea, into a very scarce commodity that must be jealously guarded.

    The country right now has record low unemployment, a strong economy, record stock market highs, low taxes, and yet there is still so much anxiety, that there is this perceived need to keep out the poor foreigners lest they take away some opportunity from Americans. That there is simply not enough opportunity to go around.

    I wish there was not so much zero-sum thinking on the matter, because there is no telling what a person may do in terms of creating new opportunities and new directions for exploration. Opportunity isn’t a zero-sum idea. All that’s really needed is liberty, to set people free so that they may explore their own potentials and therefore drive the creation of new opportunities.

    Instead the thinking, on both sides, is going in the opposite direction: there is only so much opportunity to go around, so LESS liberty and MORE rules are needed in order to keep those scarce opportunities from falling into the “wrong hands”.

    1. To some degree it is a zero sum game. You are a typical stupid white person who thinks everyone is exactly like you. Well they are not. You want to let anyone in the world who wants to come here come, then you need to be honest about the effect that has on people at the bottom of the market. You create a situation where employees have zero leverage over their employer. You don’t like the working conditions or wages, fuck you, there are a hundred people from El Salvador or Pakistan who will do your job for even less.

      If you make a mistake and get fired or go to jail or something like that, forget it. There is no reason to ever give someone a second chance when you can hire a hard working desperate immigrant.

      One of the things that always amazes me about the immigration debate is the absolute pathological hatred open borders people have for natives. They literally want to create a society where the vast majority of workers have zero leverage over their employers.

      1. That and native Americans are rejecting various Socialist agendas at an ever increasing rate.

    2. Turning America into a welfare state made it a zero sum game, by letting one person make a claim on another person’s wealth.

      Get rid of the welfare state, and we can talk about the borders.

      I mean, GEEZE, when I got into the libertarian movement in the 70’s, everybody freaking understood that: You can’t have open borders AND a welfare state, the welfare state had to go first. When did libertarians forget that basic principle?

      1. Probably around the time that the Sierra Club sold out their position on immigration for a massive donation from David Gelbaum.

      2. exactly. And it has to be the same for all countries, not just one.

    3. “What is most sad to see in this current age – not specifically about the welfare discussion per se, but just generally – is how the perception of American opportunity has turned from being this boundless, limitless idea, into a very scarce commodity that must be jealously guarded.”

      A lot of that has to do with people living on the taxpayers’ “generosity”. Convince people that these people are coming to America with nothing but the shirt on their backs because they want to work their asses off and make something of themselves, and you’ll find a lot of support for immigration.

      Telling people they lose their shot at citizenship if they go on welfare doesn’t threaten that hard working immigrant model in the least.

      1. Telling people they lose their shot at citizenship if they go on welfare doesn’t threaten that hard working immigrant model in the least.

        I agree *broadly*. The problem is, the types of welfare are different. I agree with you that a person signing up for food stamps because that person doesn’t and won’t get a job, is a type of abuse and that person shouldn’t get citizenship. However I would distinguish that type of welfare use, with things like uncompensated care at a hospital due to a genuine emergency. Some around here would call that type of thing “welfare” and losing one’s shot at citizenship due to no fault of the person’s own actions seems unfair.

        1. Emergency rooms cannot turn people away because of their inability to pay.

          It was that way before Obamacare, and that’s the way it is today.

          1. Well I know. But then who pays the bill? If that bill is written off and laid at the feet of the immigrant as a type of ‘welfare’, which means that immigrant loses his/her chance at citizenship, that seems rather harsh, don’t you think?

            1. Nope.
              You’re a psychotic moron whose life has no value

            2. “But then who pays the bill? If that bill is written off and laid at the feet of the immigrant as a type of ‘welfare’“

              Dude, if the bill is “written off” that means other people pay for it. You literally just said a bill written off, paid for by other people, is then laid at the feet of the person who accumulated that bill.

              1. The fucked up thing is little Jeffy wants it to be less fair, as long as the right sorta people are paying for the right sorta people.

            3. no, it does not

              But your position that is ok to take money by force from someone else to pay for it seems pretty harsh.

  20. “What is most sad to see in this current age – not specifically about the welfare discussion per se, but just generally – is how the perception of American opportunity has turned from being this boundless, limitless idea, into a very scarce commodity that must be jealously guarded.”

    My opportunity is limited by the amount of my money I get to keep and how much the government takes. By inviting the world and the government handing out my money to the world, you are limiting my opportunity and granting others additional opportunities I may or may not want.

    1. So how about spending your effort trying to end Social Security and Medicare instead? That is responsible for a huge chunk of the money that is being taken from you.

      1. Democrats are already offering “Medicare for all,” including illegal immigrants.

        You really think Social Security and Medicare are going away any time soon when they’re just bargaining chips to get more voters for Democrats?

      2. I do, I want ,ost welfare eliminated. I want that on behalf myself and for the additional immigrants that would be able to come once we stopped paying both ours and the worlds welfare

        We can start by cutting US Aid to shitholes

  21. Why America has welfare in the first place is beyond me.
    That area should be left to the religious organizations.
    After all, every major religion orders their followers to take care of the poor, the less fortunate and the physically and mentally ill.
    Its time for the churches, temples and mosques to step up and do what God orders them.
    If not, people might get the impression the religious leaders of America are nothing but a bunch of pious hypocrites.

    1. We’ve got welfare because the ‘progressive’ movement wanted government to replace religion’s place in peoples’ lives, so that the State could replace God.

    2. Anyone who believes in Free Will should recognize that the compulsion involved in government welfare renders it non beneficent.

      1. Anyone who believes in Free Will is already at the edge of (if not over) what can possibly be deemed scientific or truthful. Which is fine (I certainly do) — unless you then want to assume that belief as truthful in order to advance a belief that is even further over the edge.

        Pretty soon – you’re Wile E. Coyote and I’m the roadrunner. Beep beep!

        1. “Anyone who believes in Free Will is already at the edge of (if not over) what can possibly be deemed scientific or truthful.”

          Utter nonsense.

          The materialist reductionist conception of existence is lacking to say the least. To call free will unscientific, much less false (that being word meaning a lack of truth) is rationally unsustainable and laughable.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_and_Cosmos

        2. Nah, I’m one of those guys called a “soft-determinist”; We’re not any less determinist than any scientist, we just interpret “free will” to mean your choices aren’t externally dictated, but instead causally flow from circumstances AND your own nature.

          What would it mean to make choices that weren’t causally related to anything? That wouldn’t be “free will”, it would be random choice!

  22. “Trump’s New Welfare Rule Cuts Immigration Against Congressional Will”

    The only “Congressional will” that counts for squat is the “Congressional will” that gets written into legislation and enacted into law. Show me where Trump is violating a statute, or go away.

  23. Sorry, but we are NOT a welfare state for people vying for the most premier membership in the world: US citizenship.
    It’s articles like this that completely twist what the new rule is trying to accomplish: we only want immigrants who are going to ADD to the economy, not detract from it. Canada does it. Australia does it. Mexico does it. Some countries like Japan don’t even allow immigration.
    And isn’t this a libertarian-leaning website? You should be cheering this on, but apparently giving props to Trump for anything doesn’t seem to be in this site’s purview.

  24. This is the most absurd Dalmia column ever.

    It always looks darkest just before it goes full retard.

    1. You’re the most absurd libertarians ever.

      It’s like fucking kindergarten around here. Everyone gets individual liberty unless I have to look at a brown person, then fuck ’em!

      1. Find me a country in the world that has so few welfare recipients that they invite poor immigrants to come to their country–just so they can go on welfare.

        1. Name me a single time this country was made worse by immigration.

          1. 1965-present.

            1. You’re going to have to expand on that thought, particularly on the “how” part.

              1. The growth of shitty barrios is evidence enough.

                1. Well that’s fucking weak.

                  As I’ve recently discovered the worst immigrants are the ones who came through the south from England and now live in trailer parks cooking meth. Deport those assholes. Why not? Since your concern is so collective.

                  1. Well that’s fucking weak.

                    Hey, if you have a problem with it, feel free to exit your secure apartment complex and go live in one.

                    As I’ve recently discovered the worst immigrants are the ones who came through the south from England and now live in trailer parks cooking meth. Deport those assholes. Why not? Since your concern is so collective.

                    Most of them were actually Scots-Irish, not English. And I like those people better than my brown-skinned brethren, because at least they don’t get all uppity and insecure when someone wants to leave the trailer park, unlike the beaners who think leaving the barrio and not getting knocked up at 15 is selling out to the gringos.

                    1. Racism is the worst kind of collectivism. I think we’re done here. I think you proved my point.

                    2. No, it’s called “basic observations of life in the old neighborhood.”

                    3. Consider that groups of people who are constantly shit on by people like you and the holders of power might live in worse neighborhoods as a result.

                      Or maybe it’s just a melanin-associated gene.

                    4. +10

                    5. Consider that groups of people who are constantly shit on by people like you

                      That crab bucket deserves every bit of contempt I throw their way. It’s largely jealousy that I managed to extricate myself from the shitty social environment that’s been choking them for decades.

              2. No, Tony the scumbag, no we don’t. We don’t owe it to you to debate with your stupid dishonest ass at all.

          2. “Name me a single time this country was made worse by immigration.”

            Tony’s arguing with voices in his head . . . again.

            1. Should I be arguing with the voice in your head that says “brown people bad” and skip over all the phony economic arguments and euphemisms?

          3. Moron tony, immigration is not politically neutral and can massive negative effects, the immigration of masses of euro peasants created the Left wing dem machines in the old big cities, which had baneful effects on the Constitution and republican government.,..jesus stop with your Weekly Reader talking points

            1. If you think your political ideas should win because they are so great and good, then why don’t you FUCKING SELL THOSE IDEAS TO THE IMMIGRANTS?

              Jesus fuck. What you’re talking about is not even remotely legal and it has even less to do with so-called Western values.

              1. Christ, you moron troglodyte. Why should that burden be anyone at all, dullard? Sell those ideas so that you make inroads three generations down so that their progeny will sort of vote for limited govt then and then maybe recover a 1/4 of the policy ground lost? What about the damage in the meantime, you idiot? Third and Fourth world peasants are not voting down nationalized healthcare. Jesus, the morons that are around here.

                1. As long as we agree that it’s you, not I, arguing for extremely draconian social engineering.

                  I guess I took a wrong turn on the way to the libertarian website.

                  1. so you have no rebuttal?.. game, set, match….thanks for playing

              2. He wins because he is correct. You lose because you are not.

          4. Somalis in Minnesota electing Omar
            Somalis anywhere, really
            Give me more Cameroonians instead

            Kate Steinle’s father was unavailable for comment

          5. Sirhan Sirhan.

          6. Name me a single time this country was made worse by immigration.

            *starts compiling list of European nations vassal states*

      2. Tony, don’t be disingenuous. Let’s rephrase your comment into a more accurate one:

        “Everyone gets individual liberty unless I have to SUPPORT FINANCIALLY a brown (OR NON BROWN) person, then fuck ’em!”

  25. Not a single one of you retards would be here if this rule were in place when your defective ancestors Typhoided their way across the Atlantic and homesteaded here on someone else’s property.

    I’ve always thought that being open to all is what made America great, considering how many of our great people were immigrants who came from nothing and took advantage of our liberties and bounty to better themselves and the rest of humanity.

    But apparently you redneck fucktards proved that we can’t even count on that for natives, so you have to import Indian doctors. Well done.

    1. My ancestors are indigenous, so I don’t know what you’re crying about.

      I’ve always thought that being open to all is what made America great

      That’s a fantasy that’s been promoted by immigration advocates going back to the late 19th century. The truth is that there have been restrictions on immigration for most of the country’s history.

      But apparently you redneck fucktards proved that we can’t even count on that for natives, so you have to import Indian doctors.

      If we had kept strict quotas on immigration numbers, our population growth wouldn’t have overwhelmed the supply of doctors.

      1. Except for the original European immigrants who really made a mess of things for the natives, name one wave of immigrants that made this country worse. Making white people freak out and behave atrociously doesn’t count. That’s on white people.

        1. Except for the original European immigrants who really made a mess of things for the natives, name one wave of immigrants that made this country worse.

          It’s gotten pretty bad since the mid-60s, or at least that’s what I keep hearing from the left when they’re complaining about stagnating wages.

          1. None of us are blaming immigrants. We’re blaming pasty white Republicans, because they’re the ones who are at fault.

            Now that I think of it, the freaking English were the worst immigrants ever.

            1. None of us are blaming immigrants.

              Well, sure, you have to ignore a rather notable factor in the country’s social makeup if you want their votes.

              We’re blaming pasty white Republicans, because they’re the ones who are at fault.

              That’s because the left’s dogma of “white people bad” compels it.

              Now that I think of it, the freaking English were the worst immigrants ever.

              Any immigrant that came to vote Democrat was ultimately useless.

              1. Not white people bad. A deliberate economic policy of busting unions, lowering wages to the bare minimum, and taking the resulting loot for the capital-owning class. It was a whole thing. Republicans even used to advocate for it on its own alleged merits. Look it up.

                If you don’t like brown people voting for Democrats, then try convincing them why they shouldn’t. Lazy fuckers.

                1. A deliberate economic policy of busting unions, lowering wages to the bare minimum, and taking the resulting loot for the capital-owning class.

                  Marx died with the Soviet Union.

                  Besides, the same people who supported those things you’re supposedly nostalgic for? White people that you now look down your nose on as privileged racists.

                  If you don’t like brown people voting for Democrats, then try convincing them why they shouldn’t.

                  MOAR FREE SHIT is an iron-clad plank with them. They don’t give a damn who’s paying for it, as long as it’s not them.

                  1. So white citizens are immune to promises of free shit? Is it the lack of melanin?

                    Kill the old people. That’s the way to save money. Immigrants are a net benefit since relatively they skew younger, pay taxes in, and don’t take benefits.

                    I know you don’t believe that, but pretend that it’s true (because it is). If that were true, would you change your mind 180 degrees, or would you just make up some other excuse for why you want fewer brown people in the US?

                  2. So brown people are inherently predisposed to sell their votes for free shit. Is that your take on things?

                    Why don’t more white people do the same? Then *everyone* would be a Democrat, right?

                    1. Immigrants are a net benefit since relatively they skew younger, pay taxes in, and don’t take benefits.

                      No, they’re an loss, since their neighborhoods are garbage.

                    2. I have the same contempt for my fellow brown people that white liberals have for their own kind.

              2. You have to recognize how collectivist and insane this “Don’t give people freedom if they vote the wrong way” is. That’s literally your position. It’s closer to Naziism than an ideal libertarianism. It’s messed up dude.

                1. People who vote their own freedoms away don’t deserve respect.

                  1. That’s what I said when referring to white rednecks who vote for tax cuts for billionaires and against their own reproductive freedom.

            2. Tony, de parts are the most evil people on earth. You are a good example of,that. You are a shiftless parasitic sociopath deviant. There is nothing good about you, or what you do.

              Your death will be a blessing upon the world.

              1. “shiftless parasitic sociopath deviant”

                Eh, I’m about 1.5 of these things.

                1. Do you think he will die soon? Will I know far enough in advance to organize a party?

        2. And I’m not sure how you classify “original,” but the Indian Wars lasted nearly into the 20th century. That’s over 400 years of various large and small-scale conflicts.

        3. The Irish, Italians, Jews (except perhaps the ultra religious, I don’t know their politics but probabilities are that they are the exact opposite of their secular counterparts) altered the political landscape, turning it sharply leftwards. Many also did great things, but as groups, they chipped away at the concept of liberty in America. Subsequent waves of Hispanic immigrants will probably exacerbate this leftwards shift. I argue that bringing these immigrants from all these places would enrich the country if they weren’t allowed to participate in politics, and focused solely on productive endeavors (kind of how Emiratis treat foreigners -they can conduct any business but have no say in political matters). All the groups I mentioned have rich traditions from which we can learn a lot.

          1. I argue that letting them participate in politics wrests control from the white Protestant insanity that currently has its decrepit insane claws on every lever of power. Stop trying to rig things in your favor. You are not being best. You need to take a nap.

            1. As a deviant sociopath, you re eager for anything to remove the last vestiges of morality fron this country so you an steal more and slake your unholy appetites at the expense of good Americans.

              It’s best that instead you die.

              1. Do your friends and loved ones find you as charming when you’re drunk as I do?

            2. I’m neither Protestant, nor do I have Anglo Saxon origins. But I acknowledge the role of that culture in spreading and safeguarding the ideals of liberty, more so than more tribal, collectivist cultures which don’t value the individual as much.

              1. That is a racist thing to say.

                The more you know. *Ding*

                1. Sorry Tony, CULTURE and RACE are not synonyms.
                  CULTURE is a collection of common beliefs, values, and ideas.
                  RACE is ethnic origin.

                  It is typical of you, that when someone points out that some cultures are better than others, you don’t refute the value statement, you want to call it racist.

                  Are you that stupid, or that dishonest?

        4. Are you speaking of the Solutreans?

    2. This entitlement-driven mindset is just so toxic. I wonder if the author would rebuke the ocean for its ability to drown people.

  26. What a fun game we’re playing where all of you pretend that making vast exceptions to your alleged belief in individual agency has something to do with making sure a randomly selected collective bound by imaginary lines on a map are not collectively harmed by the presence of low-wage laborers.

    All of a sudden you care about low wages and collective goods. What a topsy-turvy world.

    Of course calling all brown people welfare queens is also a collectivist concern. Let’s pretend that your lies about immigrants’ use of the welfare state are true. (They’re not. They’re lies. Immigrants actually buttress the welfare state. For some reason this doesn’t comfort you.) But let’s pretend. So stop trying to shit on people’s freedom and agitate for ending Social Security. Why are you defending Social Security at the expense of individual liberty? Where am I? Racist Communist Daily?

  27. Wonder of reason will call attention to another border patrol center being shot up in El Paso.

    1. Isn’t this the incident that Antifa said they were planning for in September? Guess the Walmart shooter incentivized them to step up their timetable.

    2. Citation? Drudge doesn’t have it. Breitbart doesn’t have it. Google doesn’t even have it.

        1. So 22 fewer dead on this incident.

          Shots were fired at my local liquor store sometime between Sunday and today. I don’t even think it made local news. It happens a lot.

          1. Sounds like you live in a shithole, Tony

            1. Depends on how you define shithole. I’d rather be here than in McMansionville where I’d probably have shot myself by now.

              1. You should definitely move there. Or send an email to the Clintons telling them you have some dirt on them.

          2. Be fair, the closest most Antifans have ever come to an actual firearm is a Super Soaker.

            1. And still you don’t question why they take up so much valuable air time on Tits & Friends.

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

  29. Lots of economic anxiety here.

    1. Say what you will about Tony’s world view and occasional predilection to move the goalposts, I still enjoy having him around. Furthermore, I’d be much more inclined to enjoy a beer with him than with the tiresome Reverend, that’s for sure.

      1. Yea, Tony has a personality.
        At times, some self awareness. A sense of humor.
        So much better than those like chemjeff the psychotic and chipper morning eunuch – low intellects and existentially pathetic.

        Tony: having those slugs on your side should cause a bit of concern

        1. Not from where I sit on the spectrum. There’s them, and then there’s you guys.

          1. We are so much more awesome than them. And far more adorable too.

            1. Which of you claim this guy?

    2. When it is minimum wage people who are the most effected by unlimited immigration, it is right to feel anxious for their condition. When the US government already wastes billions on welfare, it is right to dislike the idea of them wasting more.

      1. If only the facts were connected in the way you’re claiming they are.

        I’m sure it’s laudable for you want to give shitty factory and farm jobs to citizens and pay more for your groceries. The fact that we don’t give migrant workers the rights we do citizens is, I’m sure we all agree, a scandal.

        And I’m sure Trump and Stephen Miller will take all the credit they are due when labor and thus goods costs go up as a result of their policies.

        Unfortunately, it’s simply false that illegal immigrants drain the welfare state. The opposite is the case. They don’t take benefits, see. They skew young, see. They pay taxes. Thus if you want a healthier welfare state, you should want more illegal immigrants here we can exploit.

        1. “They don’t take benefits, see.”

          So then making this a formal requirement should not be an issue.

          1. He’s not making it a formal requirement for illegal immigrants. It already is one. Read the fucking article here if you can’t bother acquainting yourself with the facts somewhere else.

      2. When they applied for legal status they were told they are not eligible for benefits. The fact some jurisdictions choose to ignore federal law is not my problem nor should it be taxpayer money.

        1. This rule has been on the federal immigration forms for years.

  30. Nope, not really seeing a downside to this. Seems like if we implement this along with must have enough background to verify as the rules, then we could basically let in as many people as can qualify each year instead of having limits.

    1. To democrats giving welfare benefits to legal immigrants is only fair since we give them to illegal immigrants. And by we I mean taxpayers that have their money wasted by politicians.

  31. Somewhere between this and the Dems “Open Borders and free stuff for everybody” lies a real solution. I think Trump does this kind of stuff because Congress has their heads up their butts, won;’t do their jobs, and too many of them are off barking up trees in Iowa.

  32. Hmm, another reporter that does no research. Maybe this reporter needs to look at every other country and see what their residency requirements are. Every country has them and stiffer than any we have. Why is it that only the US is not allowed to control their immigration?

    1. Why is it that none of you can talk about this subject without resorting to hysterical exaggerations.

      When did the US not control its immigration? I mean other than when the Europeans arrived and stole it.

      1. When you have over a million people this year crossing the border, that is not controlling immigration.

        1. What are you afraid of them doing? Being the labor supply for a labor demand? Saving their children from death?

          We’ve dispensed with the incredibly disingenuous welfare state argument (since when do libertarians want to maintain the welfare state?).

          There’s plenty of data about immigrants and crime. (They’re less criminal than we are.)

          So what’s the problem you want government to solve?

          1. “We’ve dispensed with the incredibly disingenuous welfare state argument (since when do libertarians want to maintain the welfare state?).”

            Have we? Seems we still have a welfare state, and the entire topic of this article was how horrible it is for Trump to be considering rules that would formalize requirements that immigrants NOT receive the welfare that you claim they don’t take anyway?

            1. That would include a highly-skilled white-collar immigrant who loses his job and has to take unemployment. Imagine he were Swedish!

              Did I say no immigrants use public services? Is that what I said?

              1. “That would include a highly-skilled white-collar immigrant who loses his job and has to take unemployment. Imagine he were Swedish!

                Yeah, and? I’m not the one hung up on “poor brown people”. I’m not a racist or a xenophobe. I don’t think a highly-skilled white-collar immigrant from Sweden should be benefiting from the US welfare state either any more than uneducated low-skill workers from central America or Canadians traipsing across the border. Let him go back to Sweden and get on their welfare or let his family send him some money from Sweden if he wants to stay here (legally, I’m presuming for the sake of this discussion).

                1. I feel like you should be seeing the pettiness of your position by now. It’s the very pettiness of it that makes me question its motives. Not your motives. I don’t have any reason to believe you’re lying to me in service of a racist agenda. But that’s what’s behind the horseshit you’re peddling, and I think you ought to know that.

                  A social welfare system (which you’d probably like to see bankrupted anyway, as a presumed libertarian) exists to make society better for everyone living in it. Throwing certain types of people to nature doesn’t do you or me any good. It just makes healthcare more expensive when they are rushed to the ER, and it just makes society as a whole less educated and productive when their kids can’t go to school.

                  Why not focus on killing the welfare state instead of nitpicking which types of people take advantage of it? You want the real culprits, go after old people citizens.

                  1. Poor Tony

                    1. You’ve been rather short on syllables lately.

          2. “What are you afraid of them doing?”

            Coming here for welfare. That’s the fucking point here. You seem more interested in your daily dose of jerking off while hate arguing with people you hate than discussing the fucking article you’re posting on.

            You and Little Jeffy are exposing yourselves here, and any posts in the future you make about immigration not being related to welfare will be less credible than they already were.

            1. But they only bolster the welfare system. So your entire argument is a lie. So come up with another reason to oppose immigrants. Because we both goddamn well know it has nothing to do with welfare.

              1. We obviously both don’t know shit. If there was no welfare I’d be all for a much more open immigration system.

                You tell people that what they believe is not what they believe because they are bigots. When you don’t know them. Which makes you the bigot.

                1. So if I provided you with links that explained in a credible, scientific way that immigration, legal or otherwise, does not cause a net drain on US public welfare programs, you would completely change your opinion on the utility of immigration? Yes?

                  1. “So if I provided you with links that explained in a credible, scientific way that immigration, legal or otherwise, does not cause a net drain on US public welfare programs”…there’d be no reason to complain about welfare being denied to immigrants, legal or otherwise.

                    I’m sure you mean a net positive, in the aggregate, and that some percentage of immigrants will be a net drain and some percentage will be a net positive, and hope that the research is true and that the latter’s net positive is larger than the former’s net negative. That some individuals need to suck on the government teat is just something we have to live with.

                    If that’s the case, let’s set aside the taxes from legal immigrants into a fund that pays the welfare benefits of legal and illegal immigrants and let the law say that no funding from US citizens can be used to pay welfare benefits for legal or illegal immigrants. Since you’re sure that immigrants are always a net positive, the funding here will not be an issue.

                    But hey, get rid of the welfare state altogether and then we won’t have to worry about who’s getting shafted to pay for whom, nor will we care who’s coming and going across the border–they’re all fine upstanding people who want nothing more than to work hard and make an honest living (even those folks from Sweden).

                    1. You keep calling for layer upon layer of bureaucracy to make sure that one’s citizenship status reflects one’s access to the social insurance safety net, and I’m trying to explain that it is simpler, freer, less intrusive, and less costly to apply that safety net to the entire risk pool, because the immigrants reduce the fucking costs being less of a goddamn risk! Like how insurance works!

                      But go ahead and do the “papers please” routine that for some reason is part of a philosophy of maximum individual freedom.

                    2. You keep being a bigot that judges people on beliefs that you give them.

                  2. No. Because this discussion is specifically about immigrants who use welfare. Any link you provided that shows “immigration, legal or otherwise” has absolutely nothing to do with what the fuck I’m saying.

                    Now I realize why so many on these boards just go right to insulting you. You’re simple minded and look at immigration as a team sport, and if I don’t want open borders with our current welfare system I’m a lying bigot.

                    1. So the discussion is about immigrants who use welfare. Which are fewer proportionally than citizens who use welfare. And younger. And so pay more in than they take out. Why is addition and subtraction like the most difficult concept for you people? Aren’t you supposed to be autistic number people?

                      Or is it more like you said you want to talk about rocks in general and then when someone demonstrates that your entire argument makes you look like an idiot, you claim you were just talking about feldspar?

                    2. “So the discussion is about immigrants who use welfare.”

                      Congratulations

                    3. Yet you continue to jerk your 2 inch dark red cock while arguing with someone besides me.

                    4. “Or is it more like you said you want to talk about rocks in general and then when someone demonstrates that your entire argument makes you look like an idiot, you claim you were just talking about feldspar?”

                      I’m sure this makes sense somehow

      2. “none of you can talk about this subject without resorting to hysterical exaggerations.”

        You do realize that “none of you” is an exaggeration right?

        1. Nope, you don’t, you ignorant asshole.

  33. I still remember my church sponsoring one of the Vietnamese boat people after the Vietnam War. What’s wrong with saying, “Let’s have people and organizations sponsor people.” I’m sure all the people who are so sure that unlimited immigration is an unalloyed good could gather the financial resources to do this. Get Soros on the line. Heck, Reason Magazine could surely sponsor at least one person.

    1. ^this

      Put your legal and financial responsibility where your advocacy is

    2. So far anytime I’ve seen this raised it’s been completely ignored. Rich liberals should be allowed to sponsor immigrants to come work at their estates without needing to be for illegal immigration.

      Actually, all the sudden, I’m thinking it would be super funny if Trump started sending Ice after rich people and their illegal house staff.

      1. That already exists:

        https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/affidavit-support

        You can effectively also give anyone the money to apply for an investor visa ($500k – $1M).

  34. Let me point something that infuriates me. This is not new. Trump is merely enforcing what is in place. As husband of, the son of, and relative to many other legal immigrants I know that on every one of those immigration forms for a green card it clearly says immigrants are not allowed to receive benefits or become a “public charge”. And none of my relatives ever received government benefits and were not wealthy. I recently obtained a green card for my mother-in-law and had to sign as her sponsor and am liable for her debts. I want a refund on the $700 a month I pay now for her Obamacare medical insurance, and for her living expense I pay.

    1. I agree. As a legal immigrant, I find this outrageous. The rule has always been clearly: no public assistance of any kind. For legal immigrants, that is still a hard and fast rule because there is simply no opportunity to apply for benefits (without fraud).

      This is being pushed because illegal immigrants are using public benefits and then later want to adjust status to get immigrant visas.

  35. Not a damn thing wrong with it.

  36. Why are we importing poverty? Don’t we have enough poverty of our own?

    P.S., of course from the title we knew this had to be a Shikha Dalmia hit piece. She and Reason are nothing if not consistent on open-borders and free stuff for immigrants. I wonder if it would be cheaper to just pay the entire 3rd world some money to stay home?

    1. We already do to the tune of 100 billion a year

  37. “If President Obama had made such aggressive use of his executive powers”

    Can you say DACA and DAPA? And he knew better, but did it anyway. Congress voted on a DREAM act or something very like it some 11 different times, and voted against it every single time. Clearly that’s the will of Congress and Obama just said, screw it, I’m doing it anyway.

    “I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

    “I am president, I am not king,”

    How about when Obama declared Congress to be in recess when Congress said they weren’t, so he could make some recess appointments? Talk about bypassing the will of Congress!

    1. bingo….and didn’t Barry get smacked down by the SC 9-0 for illegally packing the NLRB?

  38. Does Reason have an article posted about Hong Kong?..Christ, they are up the butts of the mainland just for some slave labor shoes.

    1. Getting real nasty there

    2. The protesters are flying the US flag and fighting for democracy so no one here would dare write about the two things progressives hate most

  39. Strong libertarian policy initiative by the Don

  40. Under the pretext of cracking down on welfare use by immigrants, it will constrict immigration so much that only the most well-heeled immigrants will be able to enter the United States going forward.

    Are you kidding me? I came to the US with next to nothing and I never used any government assistance.

    If you need any of the programs that Trump lists, there is something seriously wrong with you and your ability to earn a living.

    Just out of curiosity, Shikha, have you been on food stamps? Or any other government program?

    1. Are roads not technically government assistance? Get out, interloper.

      1. You really need to look up the term non sequitur, champ.

      2. There were never roads before tony stole my money to build roads!

        1. History wants a word with you. As do deer trails.

          1. It remains a fact that some roads have been built by the government. You can find them here and there.

            1. “Are roads not technically government assistance? ”

              How long do I pretend that anything you say is in good faith?

              1. I mean they are literally government assistance.

              2. Tony is not here for discussions in good faith.

                Tony is a Lefty, you see.

      3. Are roads not technically government assistance? Get out, interloper.

        I’m glad that you realize that immigrants impose additional costs on our infrastructure, costs that should result in additional minimum income requirements for immigration.

        However, under current immigration law and under Trump’s rule, roads do not, in fact, count as “public assistance”, hence your observation is not relevant to the policy we are discussing.

        1. Additional costs on our infrastructure? So now that’s a concern of the liberty-minded?

          Same question as before: why not go after the reproducing citizen population? Do they not use roads to the same degree of wear and tear?

          I understand quite well that the public spending under discussion in this extremely healthy exercise in racial scapegoating doesn’t include roads. But why not? Could it be because direct government aid to poor people tingles your neck hairs in just that special way that racist Republican cunts trained them for all these years?

          1. “Additional costs on our infrastructure? So now that’s a concern of the liberty-minded?”

            Um, yeah. You’re really kind scary in your total inability to understand libertarians.

          2. “why not go after the reproducing citizen population? ”
            Cuz that would be crazy?

          3. I’m gonna apologize to little Jeffy for comparing him to you earlier.

          4. Additional costs on our infrastructure? So now that’s a concern of the liberty-minded?

            Given that the liberty minded are forced to pay at gunpoint for this infrastructure, yes, that’s a concern.

            Same question as before: why not go after the reproducing citizen population?

            Rule of law and all that.

            I understand quite well that the public spending under discussion in this extremely healthy exercise in racial scapegoating doesn’t include roads.

            As an immigrant myself, I understand that to racists and fascists like you everything is about race.

            1. As someone whose family has been here since white people were stealing everyone’s land and eating each other, I understand that I apparently get to tell you whether you are or aren’t allowed to be here based on some random criteria that for some strange reason seem to correlate with skin color an awfully lot.

              1. Poor Tony. His family was too disgusting to be eaten after losing to better AmerIndian tribe.

                1. Sorry, I meant to explain that my genetic line arrived early on these shores, but not as early as the natives. I’m so white i’m not even Irish.

                  So if you’re less white than I am, I get to tell you where to fuck off to, correct? You do support Trump, do you not?

  41. This chick is as dumb as shit
    Proving you can support yourself is in the law now

    1. Lol. A late wrecking ball is better than no wrecking ball.

  42. What a total crock of shit! Why do certain people ALWAYS go for the worst possible (and least likely) scenarios possible when discussing any changes to immigration law or practices?

    Unbelievably stupid and divisive.

  43. Stephen Miller, the anti-immigration White House aide

    Good lord…Having heard this guy speak on the issue a few times he actually seems quite knowledgeable on the topic. And he is not “anti-immigration”.

    And to the new rule, what is more American than being self-sufficient? Freedom means responsibility and I consider it un-American to game the welfare system.

    1. If he’s not anti-immigration, who is?

      That video of him in high school where he complains about his hair loss and being a virgin would be funny if his psychological problems didn’t inform national United States policy.

Please to post comments