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
VIDEO: Rashida Tlaib: Dems Discussing Arresting Trump Officials
It’s crystal clear..that the left should never ever be allowed into our government. These are dangerous folks.
Maybe Rashida should be arrested for her connections to Islamic terrorists. The fact that this woman is in our government…is despicable!
Via The Daily Wire:
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) stated on Tuesday that House Democrats were discussing behind closed doors how to arrest the members of President Donald Trump’s administration who did not comply with congressional subpoenas.
“Let me tell you, this is pretty — and this is the last caucus conversation we had. Do you know this is really unprecedented? This is the worst time we’ve ever had a situation like this,” Tlaib said during a town hall meeting. “So they’re trying to figure out — no joke — they’re trying to figure out, ‘Well, is it the D.C. police that goes and gets them?’ No, no.”
“What are we hoping? I mean, I’m not in those kinds of conversations, but I’m asking, like, you know, what happens? And they’re like, ‘Well, Rashida, we’re trying to figure it out ourselves because this is uncharted territory,’” she continued. “No, I’m telling you that they’re trying to be like, ‘Well, where are we going to put them? Where are we going to hold them?’ No, I mean those are the kinds of things they’re trying to tread carefully.”
— America Rising (@AmericaRising) October 4, 2019
Accordingly, in an escalating effort to force White House officials comply with congressional subpoenas, House Democrats have reportedly been reexamining holding those members of the administration in inherent contempt — a power that the legislature has not used since 1935.
The Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI) explains that inherent contempt is the oldest of three strategies that Congress can use to enforce subpoenas. According to the Washington, D.C.-based think tank:
“Since 1935, Congress has relied on the executive and judicial branches when people refuse to comply with congressional subpoenas. This practice makes sense: if Congress cannot get the information it needs on its own authority, then it can rely on the authority of the other branches of government. However, there is another option. Instead of turning to another branch, Congress can legally imprison or fine individuals who refuse to comply.”
Tlaib incorrectly suggested that the process could be enforced by the Washington, D.C. Police Department — the procedure actually only involves the chamber that is concerned. Following a contempt citation, the individual is arrested by the chamber’s sergeant-at-arms, and subsequently brought to the floor for punishment, which may include imprisonment.
DONATE NOW TO BUILD THE WALL WITH BRIAN KOLFAGE, CLICK BELOW:
Whistleblower Didn’t Follow Law: Went To Schiff’s House Intel Panel Before IG
This pretty much explains the Democrat party. When do any of them follow the law? None of them have ever been held accountable for the laws they continue to break.
It is important for the American people to fight back. These politicians believe they are above the law. Time to stop allowing that.
A CIA officer whistleblower failed to follow the law for protecting members of the intelligence community (IC) seeking to report government malfeasance by going to the Democrat head of the House Intelligence Community before the IC inspector general (IG).
On Wednesday, the New York Times (NYT) revealed:
The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistleblower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.
However, the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 explicitly requires an official concerned about wrongdoing within the government to go to the IC inspector general before the congressional panels in charge of oversight of the intelligence community.
In fact, while the URL at the bottom of the document screenshat by @BradMossEsq has apparently been defunct since 2017, here's what it used to say. It quoted the statute saying IC whistleblowers had to go through the ICIG before going to Congress. pic.twitter.com/cqXCIOMoJU
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) October 2, 2019
Under a section titled, “Summary of Procedures for Reporting Urgent Concerns Pursuant to the ICWPA,” the official Director of National Intelligence (DNI) website states:
The employee may contact the congressional intelligence committees directly as described in clause (i) only if the employee –
a. before making such a contact, furnishes to the DNI, through the IC IG, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly; and
b. obtains and follows from the DNI, through the IC IG, direction on how to contact the congressional intelligence committees in accordance with necessary and appropriate security procedures.
The CIA whistleblower in question went to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff’s office days before the intelligence community’s inspector general, the internal investigator, and watchdog.
Investigators from the office of the IC IG are expected to operate independently of political leadership in government.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) knew about the “whistleblower” complaint days before it was officially filed, it was reported on Wednesday.
Schiff – who performed a dramatized version of President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky during last week’s hearing – was aware of the broad contents of the “whistleblower” complaint days before the partisan CIA official formally filed the complaint, the New York Times reported.
After the detailing his accusations to the “the agency’s top lawyer,” the “whistleblower” took his complaint to a House Intelligence Committee aide, who relayed the information to Schiff, who is largely leading the charge on the impeachment inquiry.
Per the New York Times:
Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.
The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff or anyone else, an official said.
As the Times detailed, the “whistleblower” eventually brought the complaint to Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the intelligence community, as Schiff’s aide suggested. That move “gave the whistle-blower added protections against reprisals and also allowed him to legally report on classified information,” the Times reports:
While House Intelligence Committee members are allowed to receive classified whistle-blower complaints, they are not allowed to make such complaints public, according to a former official. A complaint forwarded to the committee by the inspector general gives it more latitude over what it can publicize.
By the time the whistle-blower filed his complaint, Mr. Schiff and his staff knew at least vaguely what it contained.
The complaint – based entirely on second-hand information – ultimately led to the release of the transcript, detailing the contents of Trump’s July 25 phone call with Zelensky. The transcripts do not show the president engaging in quid pro quo for dirt on Joe and Hunter Biden, as Schiff suggested during his fabricated reenactment at last week’s hearing.
DONATE NOW TO BUILD THE WALL WITH BRIAN KOLFAGE, CLICK BELOW: