MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump Attempts a Sweeping Reduction of Legal Immigration by Executive Fiat

From "immigration, yes; welfare, no" to "welfare, whatever; immigration, no."

Immigration RallyErick McGregor Pacific Press via NewscomWhen it comes to slamming immigrants, the Trump administration is nothing if not tenacious. It failed to browbeat Congress into cutting back legal immigration—the kind that the Republican Party used to think was swell because these people were playing by the rules—in exchange for legalizing Dreamers or those who have grown up as Americans even though they were brought here as minors without proper authorization. So now it's trying to reduce legal immigration through administrative means. It has slashed the refugee cap to its lowest level ever, it is making the asylum program unusable, it is taking work authorization away from the wives of high-skilled workers, it is making it far harder for people with H-1Bs visas to hang on to their visas, and so on.

But none of that compares to its "public charge" rule, which was originally leaked in the spring and was finally released on Monday. The final rule turns out to be better than the initial horror. But as expected, the administration is using its executive authority not just to slash legal immigration but to remake the family-based system—the one that conservatives loved when they believed in family values—along lines that Congress has explicitly rejected several times. If President Barack Obama had used his executive power so expansively to allow more immigration, Republicans would have surely gone bonkers.

The administration's rule will give immigration bureaucrats sweeping powers to deny citizenship, green cards, or visa upgrades to any immigrant it deems a "public charge." But its definition of public charge has nothing to do with the spirit of the 1891 law that it is invoking. That law was meant—in the frank language of its time—to keep out "idiots, lunatics, convicts" or otherwise indigent or disabled folks who couldn't earn a living and would therefore become a ward of the state. In 1999, the Clinton administration defined "public charge" as anyone whose cash benefits through programs such as TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and SSI (Social Security Income) accounted for 50 percent of their income. In other words, people primarily dependent on welfare.

Trump's proposal would turn all that on its head.

As Vox's Dara Lind explains, 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. She explains:

There are three tests, based on these categories, to reach the threshold for reliance on public benefits in a way that could all but disqualify an immigrant from a visa or green card:

  1. Individual use of "monetized" benefits over 12 consecutive months that total more than 15 percent of federal poverty guidelines for a single-person household ($1,821 in 2016), or
  2. Individual use of "non-monetized" benefits for more than 12 months in any previous 36-month period, or
  3. Any individual use of "monetized" benefits plus individual use of "non-monetized" benefits for more than nine months in any previous 36-month period

Under this system, the Cato Institute's David Bier estimates, if an immigrant with a family of four uses $2.50 per day in cash and/or non-cash benefits, he or she will be denied a visa upgrade.

This is a little bit better than the administration's original threshold of $1 per day for a single person or 50 cents per person for a family of four. And it won't count welfare use by the American kids of immigrants against their parents' visa petitions. Still, it's pretty bad even from the standpoint of those who say "immigration, yes; welfare, no." Why? Because instead of walling off the welfare state from immigrants so that more immigrants could be admitted, it is using the welfare pretext to stop immigration. Immigrants already by and large aren't allowed to use means-tested federal cash benefits unless they are green card holders who've been in the country more than five years. This new rule won't bar them from more welfare—cash or non-cash. It'll just count its use against their immigration status. It is tantamount to saying "welfare, whateve; immigration, no."

And the administration will not just count the use of past benefits against prospective immigration applications. It will count predicted future use, giving immigration bureaucrats sweeping powers to weigh a "totality of factors." Having a large family, for example, will be a "negative factor." So will having a health condition while not having private health insurance, or being under 18, or over 65. On the flipside, having a household income between 125 and 250 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines would be a positive factor in favor of letting them in and an income over 250 percent would be a "strongly weighted positive factor."

The only ones who'll make it for sure under these rules are young, high-skilled singles making big bucks. Everyone else will be at the mercy of officials wielding those weights as weapons.

The Tump plan's defenders claim that it is basically trying to emulate Canada's point system, which gives preference to youth, skills, and linguistic ability. But that's disingenuous. Canada uses its point system to expeditiously process twice as many immigrants as the United States on a per capita basis. The Trump administration wants to use theirs to restrict immigration.

Furthermore, Congress rejected this approach when it refused to pass the Bush-era comprehensive immigration reform bill. So Trump is basically doing an end-run around Congress—something that drove conservatives berserk when Obama attempted it on a much smaller scale by giving a temporary reprieve from deportation to about half of the country's 11 million unauthorized immigrants. Indeed, Obama's programs were a one-time thing for a finite number of immigrants. Trump's scheme would apply to all future immigrants.

Anyway, Canada's point system isn't all that it's cracked up to be. It is better than the U.S. system in many respects, but it has problems of its own; notably, its emphasis on high skills deprives the Canadian economy of the low-skilled workers it also needs. It had to rectify that problem by creating the Provincial Nominee Program, which gives provinces vast latitude to recruit the immigrants—high- or low-skilled—that best suit their economic needs.

Restrictionists have long aspired to slam America's doors to all but the very selective few. This Trump scheme is a giant step in accomplishing that end. The good news is that in two months, at the conclusion of the notice and comment period, the government will almost certainly be sued to stop it.

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.

  • John||

    That is what he was elected to do. He has a pen and phone you know. You didn't seem to mind when Obama used his. Well, reap the whirlwind.

    This article reads like a Trump re-election campaign ad. Trump is doing what he promised to do when he campaigned for office. That is not how this is supposed to work.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Remember when SNL did the remake of the "I'm Just A Bill" and the Executive Order stepped in?

    Funny stuff.

  • ||

    That was one of the rare moments it has been in recent years.

  • Just Say'n||

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ

    This was the funniest and most poignant mockery of the Obama administration during that term. Far better than SNL's piss poor attempts at comedy.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They must have all been high on bath salts and knew that Hillary would be the next president to do something that funny against Obama.

  • ||

    They thought it was safe.

    He's still delivering them material but they refuse to use it.

  • Ecoli||

    Remember when SNL mocked women's claims of sexual harassment with the Tom Brady (football guy) skit. It was funny.

    It has become hard to find online; how odd.

  • Kongming||

    Who "didn't seem to mind when Obama used his?" Reason was all over Obama for executive overreach constantly. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

  • ||

    As I have explained before, contrary to restrictionist rants, nothing about this executive order is unconstitutional or executive over reach. Why? Because Congress has multiple times handed the executive branch vast authority to set immigration enforcement priorities. And it makes complete sense in this case to do deportation triage and focus limited law enforcement resources on targeting criminal aliens who pose a threat to Americans rather than hard-working foreigners with families and children who make a living doing jobs that Americans won't.

    Shikha Dalmia, Sr. Analyst at Reason Magazine

  • JesseAz||

    Kongming got told.

  • TuIpa||

    Daaaaaaaaamn son!

  • buybuydandavis||

    Shmackdown!

  • Armchair Lawyer||

    This isn't entirely accurate.

    For starters, while Congress has delegated a large degree of autonomy to the executive branch over the enforcement priorities, that's quite different from allowing the executive branch to say "we just aren't enforcing this part of the law for these people". To use an analogy, a traffic cop will prioritize reckless driving over someone who is just double parking. Which is fair. That doesn't mean the police force can say "we're not enforcing double parking laws".

    Moreover, even if the administration can set immigration priorities, it would make sense for a new administration to "reset" immigration priorities to a previous standard.. However, now apparently federal judges say "no you can't." Which is...odd.

    As for the line "Jobs Americans won't do"...this is misleading. What's occurred is a long standing displacement of American labor in certain fields and professions by illegal labor. Because, frankly it was cheaper and more dependable. Often, these jobs would be done by teenagers, or workers with more checkered histories. Now many of these fields are dominated by illegal labor. Effectively this has reduced wage growth at the lowest rungs, while reducing labor force participation rates. (For fun, look at the drop in labor force participation rates in 25-54 year old age males from 1950 to 2018, from over 97% to ~89% today, then ask why).

  • BambiB||

    A couple years back I read an article that mentioned that over 1 million CRIMINAL ALIENS held white-collar management positions in America.

    Now, tell me: You really think you can't find any Americans who would be willing to do those jobs?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Damn! Great job finding complete smack down prior reporting.

  • BambiB||

    LMAO!
    Yeah, libtards are nothing if not inconsistent.
    And I agree with the sentiment that Shikha's piece could be a Trump campaign brochure.
    At this point I'm to the point: Welfare: No. Immigration: FUCK NO!
    Slam the door. No more LEGAL immigrants and shoot anyone crossing the border ILLEGALLY.
    I've had enough of the whining and crying and criminals and leeches.

  • John||

    No they were not when it came to immigration. Reason loved unlawful use of exectutive power when it gave them their pony. And unlike DACA, this is not unlawful.

  • rocks||

    Good job Shikha Dalmia on exposing just how little you know of US history, law or immigration policy.

    The US always required immigrants to show that they can take care of themselves. When tons of Sicilians and Irish came they were required to show they could take care of themselves, and were sent back otherwise. Almost 50% of people were sent back.

    This only changed when the democrats realized they could use immigration to push socialism on the US.

    Arguing for "family" based migration of welfare recipients is insane. Go crawl in a hole and die.

  • EirkKengaard||

    @ John - Exactly!

  • Flinch||

    It's Shikha, John. You seem cogent and sober - small chance you will change her tilt.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    MAGA!

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    Welfare for Immigrants is a Libertarian Principle. I am sure OBL will be along in a moment to explain it with a hashtag.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Unlimited immigration into the US is the fundamental, non-negotiable principle of Koch / Reason libertarianism. The size of the welfare state, minimum wage laws, tax rates for corporations and the One Percent — these are all secondary concerns at best.

    #AbolishICE
    #NoBanNoWall
    #OpenBorders

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    If you want to say that certain people here think that libertarianism is all about tax breaks for old White men and not about letting Brown people work where they want to why go through the painful process of using parody and coming across as a little Millenial cunt that you want to get your hands on. LOL, you can just say what you really feel. Much easier.

  • VinniUSMC||

    OBL 9/10
    LTAL 0/10

    Your schtick is terrible man. You should probably just give up.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>Restrictionists have long aspired to slam America's doors to all but the very selective few.

    Restrictionists? doors?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    The love, positivity, and kindness that shines forth through this comment section is truly inspiring. My faith in humanity is restored.

  • Just Say'n||

    If you are looking to have your faith in humanity reaffirmed from the Reason comment section than you should at least wait for the comments when the Libertarian Party is mentioned. The commentators really seem to bond in the comments to those articles, because everyone seems to have a gripe with the LP

  • Echo Chamber||

    There is no humanity in any comment section anywhere. Abandon all hope, ye who enters here

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yes, I see what you mean! If you are an immigrant, and you take a few dollars of "on the dole" money, you will be denied your green card, AKA, you will be DENIED OF YOUR "PRIVILEGE" OF EARNING MONEY working a Government-Almighty-approved job opening!!! (Good jobs ONLY for native-born Americans).

    I am not a fan of "the dole" of FORCED charity by taxpayers, but I am ALSO not a fan of PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM WORKING!!!

    WHERE is the OLD GOP that was in favor of working, not welfare? Yeah, Trump killed it, 'cause he hates immigrants of all kinds!

  • JesseAz||

    Life doesn't care about you and it won't coddle you. Time to grow up Peter pan. We are asked to put emergency masks on ourselves before our kids for a reason.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Some of us love America plenty.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The feelz and lack of reason and consistency that shines forth through your every comment have certainly restored my faith in hysteria.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Initiating Executive decisions by fiat are as good as gold according to judges. Obama's DACA decision cannot be stopped by Trump.

  • AustinRoth||

    No, initiating Executive decisions by fiat are as good as gold according to judge when the President is Obama.

    For Trump, they continuously try to assume Executive authority to themselves, knowing that while they will eventually be b1tch-slapped by SCOTUS, for a while they will have thwarted Trump, because RESISTANCE!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    What does any of this have to do with Kavanaugh?

  • Just Say'n||

    It's Trump's attempt to distract us from the unsubstantiated allegations against Kavanaugh. I thought Shikha was too smart to fall for it. SAD

  • ||

    A source says Kavanaugh felt up a girl slow dancing to 'Stairway to Heaven'. While people assume it's the breast it could very well be other parts of her body. Witnesses at the school dance couldn't tell exactly which it was because it was dark but they didn't see his hands so for sure it was either in her panties or bra.

    Pig.

  • Trigger Warning||

    He once found a woman attractive without obtaining informed consent from her. That's almost rape.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Reason considers it infringement on intellectual property. Mind rape.

  • Flinch||

    When has Shikha ever done anything but go down a tangential rabbit hole in the face of current events? I would not be surprised if she drove to work using the rear view mirror.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What would Kavanaugh do?

  • Tony||

    Shove his dick in immigrants' faces?

  • Trigger Warning||

    Jeez, there are easier ways to get a hummer.

  • Jgalt1975||

    Ramirez is Puerto Rican and thus was always a U.S. citizen, not an immigrant. Did you learn nothing from the hurricane coverage last year, Tony?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS is gonna be fun fun fun.

    Tony and his Lefty pals will be flipping out for years on That guy.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Fail to get confirmed to the Supreme Court, and probably resign in disgrace from whatever other job he has.

    #BelieveWomen
    #LibertariansForFeinstein

  • Just Say'n||

    You're getting Tony aroused.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Well, that's not surprising. Tony's a progressive Democrat, I'm a left-libertarian. There's quite a bit of overlap between those philosophies.

  • Just Say'n||

    You might even say, not even a difference between the two

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Incorrect.

    For instance, I frequently disagree with my progressive friends about the morality of individual net worths in the tens of billions of dollars. They believe economic inequality of that magnitude is inherently bad, while I insist it's a morally neutral, or even a good thing. Especially since so many billionaires support open borders.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Hahaha, I love when OBL's mask slips. You just can't help yourself, dude, can you?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Woketarians of the World Unite!
    You have nothing to lose but your Clingers!

  • Tony||

    It was always possible the GOP voters would finally reduce into a white supremacist distillate and install a sympathetic president. That fact that he's mentally ill is not reassuring, but the fact that he's incredibly stupid is reassuring in its own way.

  • ||

    And you know this because....you've seen his psyche evaluation?

    The rest is just projection.

    Sorry To-To. You're leaving no choice but to say: You're fired!

  • Tony||

    One doesn't really need to.

    I can't imagine what overtime the video editors are working at FOX News to make people like you think he's something resembling a normal, intelligent human.

  • ||

    Lol.

  • TuIpa||

    And the sad thing for you is...he Trumped Hillary.

  • Tony||

    I didn't vote for him, so it's sad for a lot of people in this country but not me.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>white supremacist distillate

    blew a hole in the ceiling in 8th grade science class

  • Just Say'n||

    Is a white dude with a trust fund really the best person to be declaring who is and isn't a white supremacist?

  • Tony||

    It's not actually that difficult not to be a white supremacist.

  • ||

    It's not actually that difficult not to be a white supremacist.

    Well, let's see - you're white, and at least upper-middle class, and you've been quite open about your politics being solely and entirely about what benefits you and your Team to the exclusion of any moral principle whatsoever. So are you so sure about that?

  • Tony||

    My team is not the team of and for white men. That would be the mouth-breathing morons who think Donald Trump is a swell idea for a president.

  • Just Say'n||

    Whispers: The bulk of Democratic voters remain upper middle class white people

  • Tony||

    That is obviously not true.

  • ||

    JS: "The bulk of Democratic voters remain upper middle class white people"

    Tony: "That is obviously not true."

    Narrator: "It is, in fact, true."

  • Tony||

    Oh you switched out "men" for "people." Yeah, the parties are both majority white. The basic demographics of the country haven't changed that radically yet. But it's like 60% vs.to 90%.

    Or is your point that upper-middle class white people are exceptionally stupid?

  • Dillinger||

    don't need a team just be Tony

  • ||

    My team is not the team of and for white men.

    Sitting on your throne and saying "I wish a black person could sit here with me" does not make one not-a-white-supremacist.

  • ||

    A lot of people who've only read the comic books think the source of Hitler's super-evil powers was a disdain for non-German whites. He actually hated a lot of white Germans too. The secret source of Hitler's super-villainy was a fanatical devotion to the idea that he was right.

  • Don't look at me.||

    That's our Tony alright. Except more racist than Hitler.

  • TuIpa||

    Tony|9.25.18 @ 5:43PM|#

    That is obviously not true.

    reply to this report spam
    Square = Circle|9.25.18 @ 5:48PM|#

    JS: "The bulk of Democratic voters remain upper middle class white people"

    Tony: "That is obviously not true."

    Narrator: "It is, in fact, true."

    AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAAHAHHAAHHA

  • Flinch||

    Well, that and the intense sugar rush from a pile of cream puff pastries.

  • DesigNate||

    Which party ran a bunch of old rich white motherfuckers, and which party had multiple women and minorities on their primary stage?

    And your party has ALWAYS been the racist party.

  • posmoo||

    tony is terrified he'll lose his cheap guatemalan nanny and have to hire a more expensive uppity black girl to rear his spawn.

  • Mark22||

    Your team, Tony, is the team of racists, segregationists, eugenicists, and crony capitalists.

  • Mark22||

    You and your Democratic buddies seem to have trouble not to be.

  • JesseAz||

    Tony has gone full Kirkland.

  • ||

    Tony has gone full parody.

  • buybuydandavis||

    When in doubt, shriek "Waaaaaaaycist!"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That supposedly mental ill person beat your best selection for president.

    He beat her badly.

  • Just Say'n||

    Hey, whatever happened to Jared Polis that was the last cosmo crush before Beto stepped on the scene?

    www.freebeacon.com/politics/po.....ssion=true

    "Jared Polis, the Democratic nominee for governor in Colorado, was involved in a physical altercation with an ex-employee in which he admitted to police he pushed the woman, according to a police report obtained by the Washington Free Beacon."

  • Just Say'n||

    Dude admits to assaulting a woman. There are going to be a lot of sad faces at the next Georgetown cocktail party

  • damikesc||

    So now it's trying to reduce legal immigration through administrative means.

    He gave up on pointless compromising? Shocker.

    it is making the asylum program unusable

    Demanding evidence of a need for asylum is evil.

    Under this system, the Cato Institute's David Bier estimates, if an immigrant with a family of four uses $2.50 per day in cash and/or non-cash benefits, he or she will be denied a visa upgrade.

    If you cannot support yourself, I fail to see the benefit in having you here.

    Because instead of walling off the welfare state from immigrants so that more immigrants could be admitted, it is using the welfare pretext to stop immigration.

    "They won't do the impossible to avoid doing the possible?!?!? My lord, EVIL!!!"

    So will having a health condition while not having private health insurance, or being under 18, or over 65. On the flipside, having a household income between 125 and 250 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines would be a positive factor in favor of letting them in and an income over 250 percent would be a "strongly weighted positive factor."

    Yup, sounds like Hitler.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: damikesc,

    Demanding evidence of a need for asylum is evil.


    Demanding evidence of a need for asylum when you have lost EVERYTHING and are running for your life IS evil.

    If you cannot support yourself, I fail to see the benefit in having you here.


    A) No one cares what you think is beneficial for others who are NOT you. You're nobody.
    B) Even if it were true that an immigrant cannot "support" him or herself, that doesn't mean that there's no private support system that can help that person get on his or her feet, including family, friends and employers. You cannot assume that a person should be automatically disqualified and his or her rights violated only because it seems like the person has no wherewithal.

    In fact, most immigrants DO have some wherewithal. The State Trump and Trumpistas will merely MOVE THE GOALPOSTS to justify purging them violently from the US.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Demanding evidence of a need for asylum when you have lost EVERYTHING and are running for your life IS evil."

    It's not the job of Americans to save everyone in the world from the shitholes they live in.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: buybuydandavis,

    It's not the job of Americans to save everyone in the world from the shitholes they live in.


    No one is asking Americans to do that. YOU are the one who equivocates by confusing one thing ──giving some poor souls asylum── with "Saving Da World".

    Like I said above, it is not the fact that Trumpistas are retrograde xenophobes that makes the whole thing sad - it's the BANALITY of their arguments.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Saving the "poor souls" of the world is not our job.

    If you want to be a missionary, knock yourself out.

  • TuIpa||

    "No one is asking Americans to do that"

    That's a lie. You are.

    "YOU are the one who equivocates by confusing one thing ──giving some poor souls asylum── with "Saving Da World""

    Again, idiot, you are lying. YOU are the one calling criteria for admission "evil" because you want Americans to save the world by letting everyone in.

    Despite how stupid Tony is, your senile mendacity is the most frustrating thing to deal with here. You literally opely lie, and then lie about lying.

  • Tony||

    I'm actually surprised by the idiocy of this post. Is the principle that we don't want poor people here? Shall we kick out the ones we have? Do you advocate that? What principle are you operating from, because at least the poor ones who immigrate are industrious.

    Who else do we get to measure for suitability to live in America? Is the criterion usefulness, or something else? Can I be in charge on the day we put libertarians on the block?

  • vek||

    Here's the problem genius: Poor people are a fucking drag on society. They commit crimes at far higher rates. They don't pay enough taxes to support even basic infrastructure, let alone all the actual welfare we give them. They have higher divorce rates. They're generally dysfunctional statistically on basically everything you can think of.

    The thing is that we're stuck with the poor we have born here. A nation is kind of like family. You might be born with a super dead beat brother, but he's still family, so you might let him crash on the couch when he's between his deadend jobs and has no place to stay. People do that sort of thing for family...

    BUT that is an entirely different situation from some bleeding heart telling you you have to let ANY random deadbeat who is between jobs crash on your couch. This is what Old Mexican and you advocate.

    Poor people are a societal problem, and any sane society wants as few of them as possible. Therefore when you have the option of NOT importing MORE dysfunctional people, that's a good idea.

    Keep in mind I'm saying this as someone from a middle-middle class background on one side of my family, and probably working class at best, or poor if one wants to use that word, on the other. I'm not some gold plated yuppie. I've grown up around poor people. They're not all bad people, but you sure as shit don't want more of them than you have to. Importing dysfunction is a horrible idea.

  • Mark22||

    No one is asking Americans to do that. YOU are the one who equivocates by confusing one thing ──giving some poor souls asylum

    The executive order doesn't affect asylum seekers, and asylum seekers aren't immigrants.

  • Mark22||

    B) Even if it were true that an immigrant cannot "support" him or herself, that doesn't mean that there's no private support system that can help that person get on his or her feet, including

    We're not talking about immigrants here, were talking about people applying to become immigrants. No immigrant is covered by Trump's order.

    Furthermore, you effectively can help anybody to immigrate by giving them enough money for the private investor program. The going rate is $500k I believe.

  • vek||

    Shut your dirty, whiney, bleeding heart, whore mouth Old Mexican.

    It's fucking retarded. We cannot, and should not, try to save every half illiterate peasant from around the world. There are too damn many of them. The only outcome of that is turning America into a shithole too. Period. These people need to pull themselves up in their homelands, because that is the only way to truly end poverty.

    If we lived in Libertopia I would be LESS opposed to mass immigration (although I'd still have issues with voting, culture, etc), because I wouldn't be as directly on the hook for covering dead beats via the welfare state. But we don't. Every family that moves here that doesn't make about $60K a year means MY taxes have to go up. Period. Sure we should cut programs and shit, duh. But until that happens that's about the number where people become net positive tax payers. That's a MINIMUM bar immigrants should have to meet IMO. Probably should be higher though, because why not only take the best of the best?

    I don't want my taxes to go up so some fucktard from a shithole can move here, and if they ever get citizenship vote for anti-American laws, higher taxes, etc. Fuck these people. I'm tired of being nice. We should only let in considerably above average immigrants, because that's what serves most native born Americans interests. Our country is not a fucking charity for the rest of the world, despite what all you bleeding heart pussies seem to think.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    America has encountered successive waves of intolerance and ignorance, often related to immigration, religion, or perceived economic problems, throughout its history. Those targeted for hatred, demonization, and discriminatory abuse have included Italians, blacks, gays, Catholics, Asians, the Irish, Jews, women, atheists, eastern Europeans, Muslims, Hispanics, and agnostics.

    Insularity and prejudice have been bad bets among Americans over the longer terms, however, and this latest batch of bigots seems nothing special to me.

    Our culture has withstood the influence of linguine, egg rolls, tacos, pierogis, Jameson, bagels, sushi, lutefisk, gyros, collard greens, and the Friday fish fry. I expect America to welcome and be strengthened by the next group(s) of immigrants to join us.

    Our retrograde xenophobes seem likely to be politically neutered in a few months and sent back to America's backwaters in a few years. In 20 or 30 years, it will be difficult to find someone willing to publicly acknowledge having been a Trump supporter.

    (Try finding someone willing to admit today to having been a vicious racist during the 1950s and '60s, even in Alabama or Mississippi -- hell, if you go by the current alibis, those blacks must have been beating themselves at Selma and those Freedom Riders must have committed suicide, jumped underground, and buried themselves.)

  • Tony||

    Robert Byrd did it all.

  • damikesc||

    Well, Democrats in the North did vehemently oppose the 13 thru 15th Amendments.

    It's not like Northern Dems were all that different than Confederates.

  • DesigNate||

    Huh, what do you know, Tony admitted that Robert Byrd was a racist piece of shit.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    Immigration is war. Immigrants don't give a damn about the culture or natives of the country they invade. That's why nationalism is on the rise. Americans are getting tired of their country getting turned into some kind of unrecognizable hellhole.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Whataboutbob,

    Immigration is war. Immigrants don't give a damn about the culture or natives of the country they invade.


    That's what the Indians said...

    Immigrants are not invaders, this is NOT a war and the idea that the single most SUCCESSFUL culture in history ─the American culture, with its movies and literature and music being known throughout the world, is under siege, is not only absurd, it is a GAWD-DAMNED LIE.

    Americans are getting tired of their country getting turned into some kind of unrecognizable hellhole.


    Liar.

    EVERYWHERE one goes, one recognizes THIS PLACE as America. It doesn't matter where you go, people eat hot-dogs, go to baseball games, wan the picket-fenced home and drive SUVs and big trucks.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    How did open borders work out for the Native Americans? Is their culture still dominant? This has happened across many continents throughout history. Why does anyone think it won't happen here?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties just need votes and immigrants from socialist shitholes might get the desired result.

    Its either that or lose power to the GOP and Libertarians for the forseeable future.

  • DesigNate||

    I'm not sure using Native Americans is a winning example of the greatness of unmitigated immigration. (And as much as I think the US Government does actually have the authority to set immigration and naturalization policies, the current system is completely fucked and there HAS to be a better way.)

  • vek||

    As someone who is part native American on both sides, you just made the point how fucking RETARDED open borders are. If you were a native who liked your culture, it was DESTROYED, never to return.

    Here's what it comes down to: No matter what, baring some type of Armageddon that wipes out humanity, SOMEBODY will live on the dirt we presently call America. But that's NOT what people are talking about. We're talking about saving the actual culture, the laws, traditions, the civilization that America is.

    NO civilization can withstand unlimited immigration and remain unchanged. It's never happened, and never will happen. Now not all change is bad, but I would argue that the last few decades of immigration have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that most newer immigrants DO NOT seem to have truly absorbed in the important ideals of America. Stats show this. The important part of America is 1A/2A/etc, not hot dogs. If they had I think everybody would be a lot more chill about things.

    But they haven't, and show no signs of doing so. So people that believe in the original idea of America are rightfully thinking perhaps we should stop the flood of new people who don't believe in the idea of this nation.

  • vek||

    I think we MAY be able to convert most people that are here eventually, but not if we have an endless flood of people who don't share the values. It's as simple as that. In other words, to maintain anything remotely resembling the original American culture, we need to pace ourselves.

    To make the point, if we had 300 million Chinese immigrants tomorrow, who thinks America would be a freer place? They would change us as much or more than we would change them. America would become a worse place, because their culture and political views are fucked compared to ours, at least as far as freedom is concerned.

    The same thing applies to lessening degrees as you reduce the number of immigrants, until at some point it is more or less negligible. We should be striving towards being closer to that negligible level, not towards the it noticeably fucking up our culture level.

    A less optimistic outlook would be that we'll never convert people, or get along because of our biologically ingrained tribal instincts, and our preference for those like ourselves, and we're basically doomed to eternal ethnic infighting. This is entirely possible too. History shows that as being the more likely outcome actually... But at best we certainly can't maintain American culture unless we bring in new people at a pace where they can assimilate.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland,

    Our retrograde xenophobes seem likely to be politically neutered in a few months and sent back to America's backwaters in a few years.


    Perhaps but the damage they're doing will take at least a GENERATION to fix. What is worse is not that they're retrograde but their BANALITY. Trumpistas conjure all sorts of justifications for policies that are meant to stifle all the voluntary and peaceful transactions between foreigners and the nationals who want to employ them, trade with them, rent to them and even marry them, but all those justifications are the same tired and old canards and red herrings from other times. Perhaps the newest canard is that "you cannot have open borders and a welfare state" which is an odd assertion since the welfare state is a fairly recent phenomenon, the borders as well, whereas people migrate since humans are around, yet all of sudden a natural right is abridged by the late actions of the State?

    Again, these justifications are old, tired, and banal. Terribly banal.

  • TuIpa||

    That's a long ass post to say so little.

  • vek||

    If it means the utter destruction of the greatest civilization on planet earth, I really don't care about the right of people to move. That's an exception to a rule I am willing to make because the potential downside is so dire.

    People HAVE always migrated around in history... And it was often NOT to the betterment of the people that were already there, or at best had pros and cons.

    By your logic the Mongol conquests should be lauded. The Native Americans should SURELY have been stoked to be overrun by white Europeans! Or the Roman empire should have been looked on favorably by people who were colonized by Latins, and became 2nd class citizens in the lands of their ancestors. The Romans likewise should have been super happy to have their culture overrun by Germanic barbarians who were mostly illiterate, innumerate, and cared not for their silly "laws" and traditions. Never mind that it sent an entire continent into nearly 1000 years of darkness...

    Mass migration is NOT always favorable. So long as one isn't going all genocidal I see nothing wrong with making people stay in their own nation of birth if their immigration to your country does not serve the best interests of that country. YES this is collectivist, but so what. America is a superior civilization to anywhere else on earth, sad as that fact may be, and I would prefer to keep it that way. I just don't give a shit that some Somali wants to increase their income by moving here.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The country has changed.

    It's a world of the Welfare State. No more open plains to homestead and farm.

    And back in the day, Americans called immigrants who were hyphenated Americans traitors and told them to get the hell out of the country.

    Those were the conditions under which the previous large waves of immigration worked.

    Ready to bring those back?

  • JWatts||

    So, let me get this straight. Shikha's upset because immigrants can't come to the US and get more than $1,000 per year in Welfare benefits?

    Yes, clearly Trump is worse than Hitler.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yes, all the anti-immigrant people like to piss and moan about this... And they never want to talk about how the illegal humans prop up the fed Social Security system, w/o any realistic hopes of collecting! See ... Illegal humans are tax slaves even more so than most of us USA citizens are… They pay into Social Security, but cannot benefit! See "The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes" (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one... AKA http://www.theatlantic.com/bus.....es/499604/

  • ||

    I said this very early on in the immigration debate; it's really a quid pro quo, IMO. There's an imaginary line that prevents me from walking away from Social Security. When I can cross that line with impunity, immigrants, documented or otherwise, can feel free to cross in the opposite direction. Otherwise, it's a busted system and keeping people out is the libertarian thing to do.

  • John||

    So what? If they think it is a bad deal, they shouldn't come here. Beyond that, 11 million illegal immigrants are not going to save Social Security.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: John,

    So what? If they think it is a bad deal, they shouldn't come here.


    It is obvious that despite being taxed to feed the American-born poor, immigrants feel it is still a good deal, since they get the chance to trade their labor more profitably.

    Beyond that, 11 million illegal immigrants are not going to save Social Security.


    I'm laughing so hard at your ridiculous assertion that I had people asking me if I'm fine.

    11 million undocumented immigrants are not going to receive SS, but they ARE saving it, by producing goods and services that INCREASE THE POOL OF WEALTH, you DOPE.

  • TuIpa||

    "I'm laughing so hard at your ridiculous assertion that I had people asking me if I'm fine."

    And you told them the truth and said "yes" right?

    Nah, you were lying about being asked. That's what you do, say stupid shit and lie.

  • TuIpa||

    "by producing goods and services that INCREASE THE POOL OF WEALTH, you DOPE."

    Yeah, you liars always claim this, then the numbers get fudgy and you start screaming "RAAAACCIIIISSSMMM!!!!" any time you're proven wrong about it.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You mean the way IP theft increases wealth? That's a good little Marxist.

  • Mark22||

    Illegals are a net negative to the wealth of Americans.

  • vek||

    Dish washers that make 1/3 the income needed to become an OVERALL net positive tax payer are NOT propping up Americans overall.

    The ones who commit identity theft might pay a few bucks into SS, but they also use far more in ALL other services than their meager incomes support. Period.

    So trot out your next easily refutable bullshit line Old Mexican.

    High income immigrants are a boon to native citizens, low skill ones are not. We need to be getting our native born deadbeats back to work before we import MORE unskilled labor. Once we have 98% labor force participation rates like we did in the 50s for working age men, THEN we can discuss needing low skilled immigrants... Until then it's all bullshit that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    On the other hand, the pro- illegal immigrant people never talk about how most identity theft in the US is driven by the need of illegal immigrants for documents. (They're not undocumented, frequently they have more documents than an actual American would.)

    And, you know what? If tens of millions of illegal immigrants weren't driving down wages, Americans would feel secure enough to have those children.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "...Americans would feel secure enough to have those children."

    Sad to say, dirt-poor native-born Americans are the ones most likely to be pooping out those babies left and right! I am 15 years old and Momma is raining on my parade? Time to have a baby out of wedlock, so as to collect a welfare check and get my own HUD-subsidized apartment! Get away from my Momma's nagging!

    And the majority of those playing this game are NOT illegal humans!

    And saddest of all, to say, is that our "pubic schooling system" will be all over this idea of "sex ed" and "sexual freedom for all", and NEVER ONCE will they push the following idea: It is NOT COOL to have babies that you cannot support, and expect the taxpayers to pony up to take care of them!

  • vek||

    Responsible middle/high income people that get taxed to death don't have children when they're taxed to death! In other words the exact people that SHOULD be breeding are the exact ones getting all the pressure put on them to not have kids, or not have as many kids.

    I personally know a number of RESPONSIBLE people who just don't feel financially secure enough to consider having kids. Hell, I myself feel that way, and I make 6 figures! One of the reasons I am bailing out of the over priced prog shit hole I presently live in to go somewhere more sane.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Brett Bellmore,

    On the other hand, the pro- illegal immigrant people never talk about how most identity theft in the US is driven by the need of illegal immigrants for documents.


    Ok so let's talk about that. Whose fault is it? The immigrants? Or the State, which is only ONE step before tattooing the Number Of The Beast (SSN) in our foreheads?

    The reason immigrants want documents like an SSN is because the State started to harass businesses into reporting their employees' immigration or labor status. What authoritarian assholes like to call "E-Verify" is no more than a scheme to control people's livelihood and increase the size of the State..

    If tens of millions of illegal immigrants weren't driving down wages[...]


    Aw, how quaint! The "Lumping Of Labor" fallacy! Why, I haven't seen that one since.... Idiots like you bring it up almost daily.

    Immigrants "drive down" wages in the same manner that midgets "drive down" people's average height.

  • TuIpa||

    "Ok so let's talk about that. Whose fault is it? The immigrants? Or the State"

    Both, which you hate, but know is true.

  • TuIpa||

    "The reason immigrants want documents like an SSN"

    Steal. They steal them, and you're such a fucking toady, you excuse it because it fits your shitty 3rd world socialist politics.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Will someone PLEASE steal my SSN, and PAY INTO my account!!!

    OMG, that's really something to shit a brick about!!!

  • TuIpa||

    So, wait...you think that's what they're doing with it?

    Lol, no, just no.

  • TuIpa||

    I think I understand what happened, I pointed out the illegals steal SSN's, and SQRLSY pointed out he's an idiot.

  • SQRLSY One||

    You're the idiot. Read http://www.theatlantic.com/bus.....es/499604/ and see... But as an ideology-blinded fool, you don't want to deal with the facts. Facts hurt your brain, when they disagree with your ideology.

  • DesigNate||

    If they aren't providing cheap labor (freeing up businesses capital to spend on other things), what's they point of their coming here?

    I mean, I don't think worker migration is a bad thing, but at least I'm honest that it's going to affect wages, etc.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Immigrants "drive down" wages in the same manner that midgets "drive down" people's average height.

    Midgets DO drive down the average height. Have you never taken an average?

    And illegal immigrants DO drive down wages. Legal immigrants--we like to call them 'Americans'--can't drive down Americans wages--because they ARE Americans..

    It's like this, wetback, if you're selling apples and someone else starts selling apples too, they can undercut you and drive the price down. It's a bitch, but it's fair.

    But if the person selling those other apples stole them, well, that's NOT fair.

    And that's what illegal immigrants are doing.

  • vek||

    Old Mexican: Don't. Fucking. Care.

    These people do not belong in this country. They may pay into SS, but they leech off of everything else, just as ALL low income people in this country do.

    We don't live in Libertopia, and making bullshit arguments as if we do simply doesn't hold water. Until the welfare state is gone, I don't want to have to support low income immigrants via my tax money. I don't want their anchor babies voting either. Fuck these people. They need to ALL get the fuck out of this country, before we force them to go home via less pleasant means. I wish Trump really was the evil bastard leftist morons claim he is with immigration. That's EXACTLY what we need to be doing with these people. Kicking in doors and shipping them out by the truck load, making them so terrified they all self deport.

    And if you don't recall OM, I'm part Mexican on my moms side. I have no sympathy for these people. They're simply a bad deal for current Americans, and need to go. a

  • Don't look at me.||

    They don't use welfare. They are all industrious, hard working people who only want a chance to start a food truck business or something. Or so I'm told.

  • JesseAz||

    I've been to Portland. Food trucks are definitely a job white people will do and will appropriate the shit put of cultures they claim to defend. Pass me the korean tacos bitch.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Don't look at my hole in my head,

    They don't use welfare. They are all industrious, hard working people who only want a chance to start a food truck business or something. Or so I'm told.


    You don't have to be told. The Market already spoke - immigrants ARE industrious, hard-working people, which is why more are being invited in, by THE MARKET.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    Immigrants are coming in because of THE MARKET? That's a laugh. Immigration is just another government program to give companies cheaper labor and Democrats more votes.

  • TuIpa||

    Democrats are the market?

    How fucking stupid and willing to be used ARE YOU?

  • Mark22||

    Illegal migrants are only wanted by the market because they are willing to work for less than low skill Americans, who find tax payer funded welfare pays more.

    It's a great program for corporations, illegals, and people on welfare, it's only the people paying for it all that get screwed.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Immigrants ARE industrious, hard-working people

    Immigrants certainly are.

    Illegal immigrants, on the other hand are NOT.

  • vek||

    You're so retarded Old Mexican!

    Illegal immigrants are only being hired because they undercut native wages, because they have lower expectations for their standard of living. That's it. Period. If we really want to just lower the standard of living, and the wages, as low as possible, let's just invite in 100 million Indians and let them all live in shacks like back home! Why screw around with silly little wage depression numbers like 10-20 million Mexicans when we can knock wages all the way down to a couple dollars a day!?!?!?

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: JWatts,

    Shikha's upset because immigrants can't come to the US and get more than $1,000 per year in Welfare benefits?


    It still is surprising that late as we are in 2018, some Americans still have the reading ability of 14th Century peasants.

    NO, JWatts, that's NOT what upsets Shikha. What IS upsetting is the Trump's administration's pretexts to limit immigration. It is now engaging in a guessing game on which immigrants would be 'eligible' for benefits to then assume that those immigrants will take benefits even if they had NO intention of doing so. Instead of simply placing a wall around welfare, Trump is KEEPING the welfare system intact, instead DEPRIVING the Market of the labor it needs and is actively requesting.

    Yes, clearly Trump is worse than Hitler.


    Hitler at least had a more cohesive economic agenda...

  • WhatAboutBob||

    Old Mexican is showing his hatred for Americans. Another example of immigrants and their offspring never become Americans.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: WhatAboutBob,

    Old Mexican is showing his hatred for Americans.


    Not Americans, W. Just Trumpistas - like you.

  • WhatAboutBob||

    I'm an American so you don't deny your hatred.

  • TuIpa||

    Old Mexican is slowly going senile, Hihn-like, before our eyes.

    The good news is he'll be dead soon too so no one has to pretend to care what he thinks.

  • Harvard||

    Keep pissing him off and he's going to go back to Messico and leave us flat on our ass. No, wait. He'll never do that.

  • Mark22||

    What IS upsetting is the Trump's administration's pretexts to limit immigration. It is now engaging in a guessing game on which immigrants would be 'eligible' for benefits to then assume that those immigrants will take benefits even if they had NO intention of doing so.

    No guessing involved. If you take public benefits, you should be denied a green carda. It's as simple as that. That's that the law says, that's what the intent of the law is.

    Trump is KEEPING the welfare system intact, instead DEPRIVING the Market of the labor it needs and is actively requesting.

    You got it backwards. By importing cheap workers, Americans get displaced from their jobs and go on welfare.

  • vek||

    OM, your bullshit argument would make sense if our labor force participation rates weren't still close to the lowest in nearly half a century...

    Better luck with making a factual, coherent argument next time!

  • WhatAboutBob||

    Too bad Trump can't issue an executive order to send Dalmia back to India. She's no American so send her ass back.

  • vek||

    I swear to God, if I worked in immigration I would look through her files to see if there was anything in there that would let me deport her ass... She makes me fucking sick with how retarded she is, and how much she obviously just gives no fucks about this country or its current citizens. Lots of immigrants actually appreciate the USA, a guy like Mark Steyn for instance. But Shitma is just a piece of garbage.

    What do you expect though? She's a stupid bleeding heart chick. She can't think logically, just like most women. She thinkz with her feelz instead of her brainz.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Restrictionists have long aspired to slam America's doors to all but the very selective few. This Trump scheme is a giant step in accomplishing that end."

    yay!

    Best Shikha article ever!

  • Jgalt1975||

    and SSI (Social Security Income)

    Nitpick: "SSI" stands for "Supplemental Security Income," which is paid for out of general tax revenues, and is separate from regular Social Security.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Elections have consequences!

    Bwahahahaha!

  • Eddy||

    8 U.S. Code § 1182(a)(4) deals with public charges. Here, for those who can figure it out - you're welcome to try.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

  • buybuydandavis||

    8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
    (4) Public charge
    (A) In general
    Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

    The Good stuff.
    (6) Illegal entrants and immigration violators
    (A) Aliens present without admission or parole
    (i) In general
    An alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General, is inadmissible.
    (B) Failure to attend removal proceeding ...
    (C) Misrepresentation ...

  • Mark22||

    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.

    That's just for admission to the US.

    The rules for becoming an immigrant are even stricter, and ought to be.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Doesn't matter anyways because some judge will shut it down immediately cause black robed gods more powerful than executive orders.

  • Mark22||

    The administration's rule will give immigration bureaucrats sweeping powers to deny citizenship, green cards, or visa upgrades to any immigrant it deems a "public charge."

    Given the US redistributive tax system, these days, you're a public charge if you make less than median income.

    Restrictionists have long aspired to slam America's doors to all but the very selective few. This Trump scheme is a giant step in accomplishing that end.

    Good.

    The good news is that in two months, at the conclusion of the notice and comment period, the government will almost certainly be sued to stop it.

    Based on what? It's a non-discriminatory rule, and nobody has a right to an immigrant visa.

  • vek||

    Yup. In short, any family that makes less than about $60K a year should not be allowed in. And that's just barely breaking even mind you, and under normal circumstances. If you have 6 kids I'm sure you're still well in the hole at that figure.

  • Tyler Durden||

    In what universe is someone earning 15-30k (125-250% of the 2018 guidelines) "making the big bucks" from their "high skills"? It might work as lazy rhetoric, but it's not factual. I'm an immigrant on the path to citizenship, and I heartily approve these changes.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So let's see.

    Prior to this year, it was illegal not to have health insurance.

    And ObamaCare provided subsidies for health insurance that, BY LAW, permanent residents (green card holders) were eligible for.

    But now, if a lawful permanent resident accepted those subsidies in the past in order to avoid breaking the law in carrying health insurance, that person may now be deemed a "public charge" and be kicked out.

    Sure. Totally sounds fair!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The law REQUIRES them to accept subsidies? And now that there is no penalty for not having insurance your complaint is...?

    But now, if a lawful permanent resident accepted those subsidies in the past in order to avoid breaking the law in carrying health insurance, that person may now be deemed a "public charge" and be kicked out.

    Yeah, no.

    And contrary to the "attack on immigrant families" malarkey, the rule is narrower than it could be. It applies only to people applying for green cards, not to people who already have green cards and apply for citizenship. It doesn't consider benefits received on behalf of U.S.–born children, or the school-lunch program, or the Earned Income Tax Credit, or emergency medical care, or disaster assistance. It also doesn't necessarily apply to one-time receipt of a welfare benefit, but sets dollar-amount or duration thresholds, below which the public-charge rule wouldn't apply. And refugees and asylum recipients, among others, are exempt altogether.

    But you're super serial about welfare reform. You'll get around to it real soon now. Real soon. (Cue the "But everyone wantz the entitlementzes!!")

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well I'm glad to see that green card holders aren't caught in a Catch 22.

    Believe it or not, Skippy, I actually want to see people treated fairly and justly.

    If this rule had applied to green card holders, would you want them kicked out if they had taken subsidies prior to this year in order to stay compliant with the law? If not, then how can you claim (by your standard) that you are super-serious about "welfare reform"?

  • Mark22||

    Well I'm glad to see that green card holders aren't caught in a Catch 22.

    First of all, these rules don't apply to "green card holders" at all; they apply to people applying for a green card (=immigrant visa).

    Furthermore, even if you are eligible, you don't have to take advantage of the subsidies.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I also want to point out, from your article, Krikorian's defense of the welfare state, which I think nicely sums up the prevailing conservative view of the welfare state:

    It's also important to note that the centuries-old public-charge principle is not a moral critique. A foreigner with a sixth-grade education and a family of five may be a wonderful human being, a loving husband and father, a hard worker, and a fervent Christian — but in a modern, post-industrial, knowledge-based economy, he is unlikely to be able to feed his children without help from the government. For our fellow citizens, such assistance is justified, though we can argue about the best way to go about it. But what justification can there be for admitting people from abroad who can't pay their own way?

    Here is what he doesn't say: let's end the welfare state! Oh no, he is fine with the welfare state, as long as it goes to citizens. Moochers on the dole are okay, as long as they were born in the correct country.

  • Mark22||

    Oh no, he is fine with the welfare state, as long as it goes to citizens. Moochers on the dole are okay, as long as they were born in the correct country.

    No matter what you think of the welfare state, the idea that American citizens should be taxed in order to pay for random people walking across the US border is absurd and offensive.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No matter what you think of the welfare state, the idea that American citizens should be taxed in order to pay for random people walking across the US border is absurd and offensive.

    Why is it any more absurd or offensive than the idea that American citizens should be taxed in order to pay for welfare for citizens? Is the taxation "less theft" if that money goes to citizens instead of non-citizens?

  • Mark22||

    Because government benefits are a kind of insurance system, and that assumes that people covered by it has the characteristics of average Americans, not of average third world workers.

    It is exactly your kind of policies that turns government benefits from a bad mandatory insurance program into outright theft.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    YOU are the one defending the welfare state, not me. YOU are the one who is implicitly assuming that the theft of taxation to pay for welfare for citizens is somehow less wrong than the theft of taxation to pay for welfare for non-citizens.

  • Mark22||

    YOU are the one who is implicitly assuming that the theft of taxation to pay for welfare for citizens is somehow less wrong than the theft of taxation to pay for welfare for non-citizens.

    You bet I am assuming that. Voters agreed to the US social welfare system because it was presented as a form of insurance: people pay into it so that the few unlucky who have fallen on hard times can be helped by it. The system was based on the kind of pool represented by US-born Americans. If you add large populations of third world migrants into, it doesn't work, both because they never paid into the system, and because they are different from the pool.

    The system wouldn't be theft it it actually provided useful insurance, commensurate to how much people pay in. But I oppose the social welfare system precisely because such systems end up getting abused in the way you want to abuse it: by turning it from an insurance program into a redistributive program. The fact that I oppose the system because people like you corrupt it doesn't mean that I stop objecting to people like you corrupting the system we currently have.

  • vek||

    The difference, Jeff, that any non moron would see immediately is that we are stuck with the native born blow it cases.

    Think about it like this: If you're unlucky enough to give birth to a mentally handicapped child, you're stuck with them. They could be super sweet, nice, and you love them to death, but they're going to be a drag on you until the day you die. You also have a moral obligation to take care of YOUR children.

    But you DO NOT have a moral obligation to go our and adopt a mentally handicapped child. Some people might be kind enough to do just that, but to FORCE other people against their will to do that is bullshit.

    I don't think we should have a welfare state at all, but there IS a difference between being stuck with a problem you're born into, versus adding another one unnecessarily. If your house is already on fire in the kitchen, does that mean it's a good idea to start a second fire in the living room? Obviously not.

  • Mark22||

    But now, if a lawful permanent resident accepted those subsidies in the past in order to avoid breaking the law in carrying health insurance, that person may now be deemed a "public charge" and be kicked out.

    You don't have to accept those subsidies even if you are eligible for them.

    In any case, unfortunately, your scenario does not seem to fall under the proposed changes. It should, but it doesn't.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Imagine what you are suggesting here for a moment . You are suggesting that individuals, before the individual mandate was repealed, and who could not afford health insurance without subsidies, should have refused the subsidies and broken the law and thereby jeopardized their green card status. Really?

  • Mark22||

    First of all, the fact that people are eligible for subsidies does not mean that they need them.

    Furthermore, if you can't pay for your daily needs (and that includes health insurance), you are a public charge and should not be allowed to immigrate.

    Those are the rules under which I have always lived as an immigrant myself in several countries, and I have no problem with applying those rules to current US immigrants as well. Immigration is a privilege, not a right, and if someone doesn't benefit the citizens of a country, they should not be allowed to immigrate.

  • Mark22||

    should have refused the subsidies and broken the law and thereby jeopardized their green card status. Really?

    And let's be clear: we are not talking about "jeopardizing their green card status" with Trump's order. The people affected by this order are people who have no green card.

    We are talking about non-immigrants wanting to get a green card and wanting to become immigrants.

  • Ben_||

    People who work can support themselves and won't be stuck in line for upgraded status behind people who don't work. Seems like basically the right idea.

    They tell us almost no immigrants are ever on public assistance anyway. So what's the problem?

  • Rich||

    cannot be monetized: Medicaid, low-income Medicare Part D assistance, and subsidized housing.

    Well, there's part of your problem.

  • JeffreyL||

    The op never demonstrates this action is outside the bounds of the statute in question.

    Lets start with what the law says, shall we

    (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 excludable 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

    (ii) In addition to the factors under clause (i), the consular officer or the Attorney General may also consider any affidavit of support under section 213A for purposes of exclusion under this paragraph.

    So the significant next question to the OP - Chevron Deference?

    If no, what part of the update from the new rulemaking is outside the clear statutory text of the law.

    Write this article. It would be a whole lot more useful that what you wrote above, which is useless.

  • Truthteller1||

    How old is the author, twelve? This is how presidents govern and has been for thirty years. No president in history used executive orders more than Obama. He couldn't pass bipartisan legislation if his life depended on it. STFU.

  • Observant||

    Your third sentence is incorrect. Beginning with George Washington, the record of all Presidents' Executive Orders can be found here at The American Presidency Project: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php FYI, this site is updated monthly, so Mr. Trump's record is as of September 20, 2018.

  • Spookk||

    I dont see any problem with this. the article is pretty slanted, though, and uses inflammatory terminology throughout.

  • vek||

    Go Trump, Go!!!

    I want to see him just keep turning up the heat. We don't need low skill immigrants in a country that has the lowest labor force participation rate in nearly half a century. It's all just bullshit being spewed by people who are bleeding heart morons, or leftists who want votes. Either way those people can fuck off.

    I really do hope there is miraculously a Red Wave in November and Trump can just start ramming through hardcore new laws on all the shit he wants to do. It'll be priceless to see progs and closet progs like the writers at Reason freak the fuck out even worse than they have been... I'm not a religious man, but I think I may take the time to pray a few times between now and November...

  • vek||

    Also

    "The only ones who'll make it for sure under these rules are young, high-skilled singles making big bucks. "

    And WTF is so horrible about this??? It sounds like a pretty damn sensible plan to me. I mean do we want old, low skilled, people making low wages??? You people are too friggin' much.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online