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
Newly Released Emails Confirm FBI Tried To Work Deal With State Dept To Minimize Hillary Email Scandal
The insanity never seems to end and once again the great Judicial Watch is doing Congress’ oversight job! It’s time arrests start happening.
Newly released FBI emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request confirm that James Comey’s FBI attempted to work out a quid pro quo deal with the Obama State Department to help cover up the Hillary Clinton private email server scandal just weeks before the 2016 election.
Back in October 15, 2016, Fox News first reported on the deal but full confirmation did not come until this week when the government watchdog group Judicial Watch released FBI communication related to the deal.
“FBI interview summaries and notes, provided late Friday to the House Government Oversight and Intelligence Committees, contain allegations of a ‘quid pro quo’ between a senior State Department executive and FBI agents during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, two congressional sources told Fox News,” Herridge and Browne reported in 2016. “This is a flashing red light of potential criminality,” Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah) told Fox News at the time. “In return for altering the classification, the possibility of additional slots for the FBI at missions overseas was discussed,” he said.
Fox News reported on Monday that over two years later, the allegation that the FBI and State Department floated a “quid pro quo” deal has now been confirmed, and it originated with the FBI:
The trove of documents turned over by the FBI, in response to a lawsuit by the transparency group Judicial Watch, also included discussions by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page concerning a potential quid pro quo between the State Department and the FBI — in which the FBI would agree to effectively hide the fact that a Clinton email was classified in exchange for more legal attache positions that would benefit the FBI abroad, and allow them to send more agents to countries where the FBI’s access is ordinarily restricted.
The quid pro quo would have involved the FBI providing some other public reason for withholding the Clinton email from disclosure amid a Freedom of Information Act request, besides its classification level. There are no indications the proposed arrangement ever took place.
And, in the face of mounting criticism aimed at the FBI, the documents revealed that Comey quoted the 19th century poet Ralph Waldo Emerson by assuring his subordinates, “To be great is to be misunderstood.”
The FBI did not respond to Fox News’ request for comment on the released emails.
Read the full report via Fox News
WATCH: Trump Slams Pelosi On Wall, Kneeling NFL Players In Pre-Super Bowl Interview
In President Trump’s pre-Super Bowl interview with CBS News, he slammed Rep. Nancy Pelosi on the wall, as well as NFL players who kneel during the National Anthem. He was in fine form. He nailed Pelosi at the beginning of the interview and then took on the NFL and kneeling at the 15:40 mark. Trump also took extreme exception with those who are second-guessing his decision to pull American troops out of both Syria and Afghanistan.
In the interview, Trump also briefly discussed football. He said he would not push his son Barron to play the game, knowing the risk of long term brain injury. He also pointed out that soccer is becoming more popular as a sport.
But it’s his flaying of Pelosi that was riveting. President Trump referred to Nancy Pelosi as “very rigid” and intimated that he may sidestep Congress to get the wall built by declaring a national emergency. Rumor has it that an executive order is ready and awaiting his signature. At least Trump didn’t call Pelosi “frigid” although that certainly came to mind.
“I think that [Pelosi] was very rigid — which I would expect — but I think she is very bad for our country,” Trump told reporter Margaret Brennan. “She knows that you need a barrier. She knows that we need border security. She wanted to win a political point. I happen to think it’s very bad politics because basically, she wants open borders. She doesn’t mind human trafficking or she wouldn’t do this.”
“She can keep playing her games, but we will win. Because we have a much better issue. On a political basis, what she’s doing is — I actually think it’s bad politics, but much more importantly it’s very bad for our country,” he stated.
“You know, there have been plenty of national emergencies called,” Trump explained. “And this really is an invasion of our country by human traffickers.”
Trump wasn’t anywhere near done. She “doesn’t mind human trafficking,” Trump added, torching Pelosi very nicely.
From The Daily Wire:
“As for the kneeling NFL players, Trump believes the recent boost in NFL ratings proves he was right that anti-racism protests were souring Americans on professional football. Trump also believes he’s made progress handling some NFL players’ complaints. “A lot of people in the NFL have been calling and thanking me,” he said, referring to his part in efforts to reform the criminal justice system and grant clemency to a number of federal prisoners serving long sentences for drug crimes.
“You have to respect our flag and our country. I want that as president and I’d want that as a citizen. And I have a very good relationship. I did them a big favor in negotiating the USMCA, which is basically the replacement to NAFTA, which is one of the worst trade deals ever made,” Trump said. “And Roger Goodell, this is a dispute that has gone on for years. Roger Goodell called me and he thanked me.”
“In a final interview, which aired just before the game, Trump touted his plan to withdraw American military forces from Syria and Afghanistan, noting that the United States’ commitment to the two countries won’t be dimmed by a change in troop presence.
“We’ll come back if we have to,” Trump said.
“We have very fast airplanes, we have very good cargo planes. We can come back very quickly, and I’m not leaving,” Trump added, hammering in the possibility that American troops could easily re-deploy to the region. “We have a base in Iraq and the base is a fantastic edifice. I mean I was there recently, and I couldn’t believe the money that was spent on these massive runways. And these — I’ve rarely seen anything like it. And it’s there. And we’ll be there. And frankly, we’re hitting the caliphate from Iraq and as we slowly withdraw from Syria.”‘
This isn’t the first time President Trump has given an interview before the Super Bowl. He’s done it a number of times now. His State of the Union Address this week promises surprises but will also touch on these issues.