The Department of Homeland Security recently released a draft of the regulation to stop legal immigration of those are likely to need taxpayer assisted aid program. These include medical care, anti-poverty aid as well as pension aid. This regulation is based on a long-standing law that is already in place and could start as early as potentially next year.
The regulation is meant to sharply decrease the cost to taxpayers of supporting the nearly 1.1 million migrants that come to American legally and are given green cards annually. Over the next few years, it can decrease the influx of unskilled labor. This is meant to potentially help nudge the employee wages for unskilled Americans.
The regulation utilizes existing law that has already been in place for some time. Thus, various migration advocates will find difficulty when they attempt their lawsuits. It is expected that business groups will lobby Congressional members to override and get rid of the regulation.
“The regulation uses existing law, so migration advocates may not be able to stop it via lawsuits unless President Donald Trump loses the 2020 election. However, business groups likely will lobby Congress to override the regulation.
The rule likely will trim the fast-growing inflow of elderly migrants, such as the retired parents of recent immigrants. It could also block the arrival of many ailing or poor chain-migrants, such as the siblings of unskilled immigrants, but it is not likely to reduce the overall chain-migration inflow because the chain-migration waiting-line of 4 million people includes many people who are not poor, ill or unskilled.
The proposed regulation does not cover immigrants who already have green cards or citizenship. But the regulation will cover many illegals, overstays, and visa-workers who are in the United States and hope to file an “Adjustment of Status” that would get them green cards and also allow them to import their relatives via the chain-migration rules that Congress has refused to reform.
The agency’s statement says:
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a proposed rule that will clearly define long-standing law to ensure that those seeking to enter and remain in the United States either temporarily or permanently can support themselves financially and will not be reliant on public benefits … [or] likely to become burdens on American taxpayers.
DHS is proposing to consider current and past receipt of designated public benefits above certain thresholds as a heavily weighed negative factor. The rule would also make nonimmigrants who receive or are likely to receive designated public benefits above the designated threshold generally ineligible for change of status and extension of stay.
The public benefits proposed to be designated in this rule are federal, state, local, or tribal cash assistance for income maintenance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid (with limited exceptions for Medicaid benefits paid for an “emergency medical condition,” and for certain disability services related to education), Medicare Part D Low Income Subsidy, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps), institutionalization for long-term care at government expense, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance, and Public Housing. The first three benefits listed above are cash benefits that are covered under current policy.
The phrase “heavily weighed negative factor” implies that most — but not all — poor, sick and unskilled applicants will not be given residency.
The regulation does not count taxpayer aid related to the Affordable Care Act or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and it excludes taxpayers’ rebates under the Earned Income Tax Credit. The rule also allows would-be immigrants to receive a small amount of aid, or roughly $3,765 for a family of four, or a $1,821 for a single person. The rules only apply once the regulation is established, so it does not cover potential migrants’ current use of aid programs.
The DHS statement and DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen noted that the regulation implements a long-ignored law excluding migrants who may impose a “public charge” on Americans:
The term “public charge” as applied to admission of aliens to the United States has a long history in U.S. immigration law, appearing at least as far back as the Immigration Act of 1882. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries public charge was the most common ground for refusing admission at U.S. ports of entry.
“Under long-standing federal law, those seeking to immigrate to the United States must show they can support themselves financially,” said Secretary Nielsen. “The Department takes seriously its responsibility to be transparent in its rulemaking and is welcoming public comment on the proposed rule. This proposed rule will implement a law passed by Congress intended to promote immigrant self-sufficiency and protect finite resources by ensuring that they are not likely to become burdens on American taxpayers.”
The new policy was slammed by advocates for mass migration and imposed diversity, and it was praised by pro-American groups who support lower immigration rates.
IMPORTANT – Tonight’s efforts to slash legal immigration through the public charge memo. pic.twitter.com/cgDusfMQ0P
— Todd Schulte (@TheToddSchulte) September 23, 2018
The National Immigration Law Center portrayed the regulation as an insult to poor people:
“The proposal is reckless, deeply unfair, and inconsistent with core American values. It is a massive backdoor change to decades of immigration law. It places wealth over family, denying ordinary working families a place in America. And it explicitly places a priority on well-off families and ignores families who have waited years to be reunited” said Olivia Golden, executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy.
Pro-migration progressives also portrayed the reform as an attack on children, including the U.S-born children of recent migrants. In April, Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee complained about the pending regulation, writing:
The proposal is clearly intended to deny basic supports like food, health care, and housing to lawfully present immigrants and their families — including millions of children and U.S. citizens — who pay taxes, work, go to school and contribute to our country’s economy.
But immigration reformers applauded the regulations needed to implement the existing law.
“This is long overdue,” said Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told the New York Times. For years, “this country has defined public charge in a fictional way in order to facilitate high levels of low-skilled immigration. But this is simply a 21st-century definition of what public charge is.” He continued:
This isn’t a moral issue …. A Honduran with a sixth-grade education level isn’t morally flawed, but he works three jobs and still can’t feed his family. Immigrants with low levels of skill are a mismatch for a modern society like ours.”
Share if you agree with enforcing this rule.
Share if you agree the Trump administration is doing the right thing.
Share if you hope this will continue to be the law of the land.
Trending Now on Right Wing News
Pelosi, Hoyer Take Impeachment Off The Table, Dems Crushed
Get used to it, Democrats. President Trump ain’t going anywhere. Your dreams are ruined!
The top two Democrats in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer , have called a time out on impeaching President Donald Trump, crushing the dreams of thousands of progressive activists and many of their House colleagues.
Pelosi announced the decision to forgo instituting impeachment proceedings on a call with House leaders Tuesday morning telling 170 Democratic Members of Congress on an insane, 90-minute conference call, that the House will instead focus on investigating the President and let the American people decide what to believe in November of 2020.
Fox News reports that Pelosi told her colleagues that “we have to save our democracy.”
“This isn’t about Democrats or Republicans. It’s about saving our democracy. If it is what we need to do to honor our responsibility to the Constitution – if that’s the place the facts take us, that’s the place we have to go,” she added, before claiming that the “facts” simply don’t point to removing the President from office quite yet — but that further investigation could lead there.
“We don’t have to go to articles of impeachment to obtain the facts, the presentation of facts.”
In a letter released ahead of the call, Pelosi got into greater detail.
“While our views range from proceeding to investigate the findings of the Mueller report or proceeding directly to impeachment, we all firmly agree that we should proceed down a path of finding the truth,” Pelosi wrote to Democratic Members. “It is also important to know that the facts regarding holding the president accountable can be gained outside of impeachment hearings.”
“Whether currently indictable or not,” she added, “it is clear that the president has, at a minimum, engaged in highly unethical and unscrupulous behavior which does not bring honor to the office he holds.”
In other words, Pelosi plans on spending the next eighteen months directing multiple investigations into Trump, his finances, his businesses, and his White House, in the hopes that the public impact of such probes will seriously injure the President, giving Democrats an advantage in the 2020 election.
Dems reacted on Twitter:
Former Obama Administration speechwriter, Jon Favreau.
This is unbelievably disappointing. Even if you don't ultimately pursue impeachment proceedings, why on Earth would you say this today?
Part of the American people making a judgment in 2020 requires a full account of the President's criminality and abuse of power. https://t.co/DB634jA2Fq
— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) April 18, 2019
The Steny Hoyer quote is just unreal.
— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) April 18, 2019
Left-leaning commentator Judd Legum.
What about the election that happened 6 months ago when people voted for Democrats on the promise they would hold Trump accountable? https://t.co/sll7sG6v3w
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) April 18, 2019
Unbelievable cowardice. https://t.co/niJUGbvp6e
— David Roberts (@drvox) April 18, 2019
So now political leaders get to break whatever laws they want in order to boost their power and it's all good b/c if the voters get mad they can vote against them afterwards.
If only there were hundreds of years of historical precedent on what happens right after that. https://t.co/lpJmky9LsL
— Hunter (@HunterDK) April 18, 2019
Hard disagree. https://t.co/R66I00MHmv
— Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) April 18, 2019
Read the full story via The Daily Wire
Like one patriot wrote:
“I say go for it Nancy. Go ahead, tie up our nation for another 18 months of completely baseless, ridiculous inquiries and accusations. Watch how the American people vote in 2020 when they get so sick of all of the Democratic Party antics. Let’s have another 18 months of keeping our country in a state of suspended animation waiting for the next asinine idea you idiots are going to come up with. Do it Nancy do it. More votes in 2020 for us.”
The majority of Americans are sick & tired of the Democrat party. Imagine how they are going to react when President Trump wins in 2020. I wonder how many liberals are going to kill themselves over this. They still can’t get over 2016… and they for sure won’t be able to deal with life after 2020.
Keep it up, Democrats. This ain’t going to help you in the end. Your party is going down faster than Bill Clinton’s pants.
DONATE NOW TO BUILD THE WALL WITH BRIAN KOLFAGE, CLICK BELOW:
Elizabeth Warren Says Use Taxpayer Money To Pay Student Debt – $1.25 TRILLION Cost
If Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is a real economist, I’ll eat my hat. The woman is nothing more than an economically illiterate Marxist. She’s now proposing using taxpayer money to “cancel” hundreds of billions of dollars in student-loan debt and offer debt-free college for millions more, which would cost $1.25 trillion over the next decade.
I’m sure young people will mostly support this move, but ask yourself… where does the money come from to pay off these loans? If you said a wealth tax you get a cookie. She intends to rob the rich to pay off student loans. Economically speaking, that is moronic.
It is successful and rich business owners who provide jobs for everyone else. Your degree won’t mean much if you can’t find work. Margaret Thatcher once said that “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people’s money.” She was more right than she ever knew.
Warren wrote a blog post on the leftist Medium site where she stated that the “huge student loan debt burden” is “crushing millions of families and acting as an anchor on our economy. It’s reducing homeownership rates. It’s leading fewer people to start businesses. It’s forcing students to drop out of school before getting a degree. It’s a problem for all of us.”
From The Daily Wire, here is some of Warren’s drivel:
“The first step in addressing this crisis is to deal head-on with the outstanding debt that is weighing down millions of families and should never have been required in the first place. That’s why I’m calling for something truly transformational — the cancellation of up to $50,000 in student loan debt for 42 million Americans.
“My plan for broad student debt cancellation will:
“Cancel debt for more than 95% of the nearly 45 million Americans with student loan debt;
“Wipeout student loan debt entirely for more than 75% of the Americans with that debt;
“Substantially increase wealth for Black and Latinx families and reduce both the Black-White and Latinx-White wealth gaps; and
“Provide an enormous middle-class stimulus that will boost economic growth, increase home purchases, and fuel a new wave of small business formation.”
Do I get a refund for having chosen a cheaper public university so I wouldn't be riddled with a ton of debt?
Seriously this is stupid – everyone knows what they're borrowing when they go through the process and I want no part in paying off everyone else's student loans. https://t.co/aAadWHUZ8i
— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) April 22, 2019
This is money for nothing, chicks for free blather. It would destroy the middle-class and she knows it. You can’t afford to buy a home if all your income is going out in taxes to pay for other people’s education. I worked hard and paid off my loans and I don’t want to pay for others who want a free ride.
“Do I get a refund for having chosen a cheaper public university so I wouldn’t be riddled with a ton of debt?” wrote Josh Jordan. “Seriously this is stupid – everyone knows what they’re borrowing when they go through the process and I want no part in paying off everyone else’s student loans.”
“You better retro that and pay back all of us who diligently paid our loans back in full if you pull this bull—-,” wrote a Twitter user.
“Experts estimate my debt cancellation plan creates a one-time cost to the government of $640 billion. The Universal Free College program brings the total cost of the program to roughly $1.25 trillion over ten years,” Warren wrote. She would print money to cover the cost starting an economic domino effect that will leave us in a Weimer-esque Republic. The sheer idiocy of this proposal stuns me.
But I don't wanna pay for other people's college or their college debts. https://t.co/yvoK9eoU1E
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) April 22, 2019
Warren says “the actual costs of these new ideas are likely to be even less than that,” and claims “we can fully cover the cost of these ideas with revenue from my Ultra-Millionaire Tax on the wealthiest 75,000 families in the country — those with fortunes of $50 million or more.” She is insane. Stripping the wealth from Americans like that is a suicide march off a Marxist cliff.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the plan would entail “an annual 2% levy on wealth above $50 million and an additional 1% tax on wealth above $1 billion.” You do know that most of the wealthy would find a way around that theft, right? In the end, it would be the middle-class paying for all this and the burden would crush us.
Under her plan, borrowers with a household income under $100,000 would have $50,000 of their student debt canceled. Borrowers with an income between $150,000 and $250,000 would be eligible for some debt cancellation, though not the full $50,000, and borrowers earning $250,000 or more wouldn’t have any of their debt canceled.
Warren, who is running for president in 2020 and stands no chance of being elected, also proposes using $50 billion in taxpayer funds for historically black colleges and universities, known as HBCUs. She wants to “prohibit public colleges from considering citizenship status” when making admissions decisions. So throw the borders open and educate the world while stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Galt’s Gulch is looking better and better if the leftists come back into power.
In addition, Warren wants to phase out federal money that now goes to for-profit schools. “After an appropriate transition period, ban for-profit colleges from receiving any federal dollars (including military benefits and federal student loans), so they can no longer use taxpayer dollars to enrich themselves while targeting lower-income students, servicemembers, and students of color and leaving them saddled with debt,” she wrote. Instead, she will saddle all of America with debt and ‘news flash!’… we’re already beyond broke. This would also begin to bring all colleges under the purvue of the federal government. Not good.
Student loan debt has more than doubled over the last 10 years to $1.5 trillion, and some economic experts say that it is driving the declining homeownership rates among young adults. Get a job, pay off your debt and stop whining. If you can’t pay it off, don’t take the loans. Go into business for yourself. Start acting more like an entrepreneurial American and less like a European Marxist weenie.
DONATE NOW TO BUILD THE WALL WITH BRIAN KOLFAGE, CLICK BELOW: