No Poor Immigrants - Trump

So Trump is proposing a plan whereby anyone that has received welfare like food stamps, medicaid and TANF will have a harder time getting citizenship and permanent residency.

This is fucking bullshit and I am amazed that this hasn’t received its own pit thread. I am now aware of people who are foregoing things like medicaid, food stamps and even school lunch for their kids to avoid popping up on this particular radar.


What is the goddam argument for this? Perhaps I am being too emotional and unable to see things clearly. Talk me down, tell me why this is OK.

Just when I get tired of liberal silliness, hypocrisy and irrationality, I am reminded that the alternative is evil. So… thanks Trump. I guess. For reminding me that I’d rather hang with the idiots that the monsters.

Why would you expect anyone to tell you this is okay? It’s awful. It’s been criticized in many other threads – I suppose other posters might feel like there are enough Trump threads, and included this in those other ones rather than open a new one.

It is difficult for me to believe a Christian like President Trump would do such a thing.

Do you have a cite?

The argument is simple - kick out people who are not citizens or permanent residents who utilize government provided services, and then the US will pay less in government provided services.

It’s not an ok policy, but the argument is easy.

There’s an old adage about how people who despise government, when in power, rule despicably.

In the age of Trump I am often reminded of it.

I wonder if they’d be OK with going even further and revoking the citizenship of people who have unpaid debts through bankruptcy. What a drain on society.
And America hating income tax cheaters. Total drains.

…or the citizenship of politicians who refuse to release their tax returns.

Just kidding, of course. :smiley:

In other words… pretty much everyone who is legitimately here as a refugee or seeking asylum…

It’s difficult for me to believe that Trump is a Christian. Do you have a cite?

It’s difficult for me to believe that Trump has half a brain or .0002% of a heart. Cite?

In another thread, I mentioned that this moved me to write letters to the Sec of Homeland Security, and to the Office of Management and Budget, which was considering this proposal last week (the OMB might be done with their part in this, by now). With the constant barrage of crappy initiatives giving me Trump fatigue, and my own laziness (and busy life), I rarely take the time to write letters (or even emails or official website comments), but this time I did.

This shows Trump’s heart is in his brain.

Can you provide a link to what you are talking about?

Although it’s very rare, there have been a few things Trump has done that I agree with. I don’t think there has been anything in the immigration arena like that, but I’m still hesitant to jump on the bandwagon without knowing the details.


Pretty vague, at this point, to justify the policy or criticize it effectively. “details have not been worked out”, but “they could make it harder…” I’ll wait for the final Executive Order or whatever. It does have Steve Miller’s handprints on it, though, and I can’t say I’ve agreed with anything that came from him.

It should be no surprise, though, if it ends up making things harder for refugees. Trump campaigned on doing just that, and he’s doing what he said he would do. If anyone wants to know why he’s doing this, a good guess is that it plays to his base. And he seems to LOVE playing to his base.

Remind you of anyone? (0:52 - 1:30)

It’s not going to make things harder for just refugees; it’s also probably going to be easier for the government to expel legal immigrants who have taken advantage of things like Affordable Care Act subsidies or Medi-Cal. It’s clever actually: change interpretation of the law to use what the legal immigrant believed was lawful behavior against him.

It’s just the beginning. Unless voters stop them, this will get ugly, in ways we haven’t seen or even imagined in our lifetimes. Maybe it’s cutting half of DHS staff so that processing immigration lines get longer and people just give up and go elsewhere. Maybe it’s alt-right organized boycotts of immigrant-owned businesses a year or two from now. The outrage you’re seeing inevitably leads to another outrage.

It’s not just “playing to his base”; the rule of law has him in its sights and they’ve basically decided that the only way that they can survive is to appeal to an ugly mob, and for that mob to consent to fundamentally alter political norms. It’s a social contract between awful voters and even more awful authority. Now that mob might only be 30-35% of the population, but that’s all they really need. They can win elections with that 30-35%. They can destroy the Constitution with that 30-35%.

Daring to address the underlying issue…

US Immigration law has, and has had for many many years, a requirement that a person is inadmissible if that person “at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge.” See INA 212(a)(4) The law provides that “Except as otherwise provided in this Act, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States”

(my emphasis)

Way back in the early 1900s admission for immigration or granting of permanent residency was predicated mostly on whether the person seeking admittance would be self sufficient. They didn’t have to be rich, but needed to be able to work to pay their own way in society. So this idea of financial independence is old. Other factors like not having an incurable contagious disease were a more considerable burden for many prospective immigrants.

Fast forward to more recent times and what exactly constitutes being a public charge has become an issue. There is guidance in regulations but not a lot of detail in the law itself. And regulations are much easier to change from one administration to another.

Regulations specify that a totality of circumstances should be taken into account when considering whether someone might be denied admittance or adjustment of status* based on likelihood of becoming a public charge. Age, health status, assets, family status, education and skills, and whether the applicant has an affidavit of support are some of the factors to be considered when make a public charge determination.

And a key factor has been whether the applicant is likely to receive government benefits, and if so what sort of benefits. Regulations specifically discuss whether the applicant is likely “to become primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.”

So a claim for Social Security after working 50 years? - not going to be a problem. SNAP and TANF from day one - probably will be a problem. SSI Disability - who knows!? Generally cash benefits are the most problematic.

But what about other benefits? Reduced or free lunches for an immigrant kid in elementary school? Subsidies for Section 8 housing? Medicaid covering long term care in a nursing home? What qualifies or how much is too much to be a problem is not clear.

The Obama administration noted this public charge issue as a problem with regard to subsidies for health insurance bought on the federal exchange. Typically an American must earn 125%** of the federal poverty line for the family size in order to file and affidavit of support to sponsor an immigrant. But subsidies are available on the health care exchange for incomes up to 400% of the poverty limit.

So if such subsidies were considered benefits making someone ineligible for immigration admission it would effectively mean that many more applicants would be ineligible. So the Obama administration decided those subsidies don’t count. But future administrations can change that decision by revising the regulations.

And so it seems the Trump administration has decided to make changes to the regulations controlling the public charge issue.

  • Naturalization has not been impacted by likelihood of becoming a public charge under prior regulation. So an immigrant with Lawful Permanent Residency (green card) who becomes a quadriplegic in a car crash can still become an American citizen even though he may be much more likely to become dependent on government assistance. At least for now. If the regulations change naturalization may become affected too.

** Lower income and/or financial resource limits apply for military service members sponsoring an immigrant.

I could be wrong, but I think it was Bubba Clinton who first decided to make substantive changes to welfare for (legal) immigrants, who until the 1990s had been eligible for many of the same programs that natural born citizens were eligible for. But Clinton’s changes were only applied to cash benefits, not non-cash benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, etc. The Trump administration is basically saying, “If you ever got any benefits - cash or non-cash - on the federal taxpayer’s dime, goodbye!”

Bear in mind, there are people who actually purchased healthcare to comply with ACA laws and regulations, who now live in fear that they might have that used against them. These were people who were behaving lawfully, and in fact, were trying to spend more of their own income to do so by purchasing insurance, provided that they get subsidies in return. That is being used against them.

The message that this sends is very, very clear: we don’t give a god damn about whether you were trying to be here legally or not. If you are an immigrant and you are not self-supporting…get the fuck out of the country.

This anti-foreignness is exactly the stuff of Nazi Germany. Don’t like that analogy? Fine. It’s the stuff of modern Turkey, modern Russia, modern Venezuela. I could go on. Hell, America has its own history of anti-foreign sentiment and fascist sentiment. It’s not like we need outside inspiration. The Nazis actually borrowed eugenics from America, not the other way around.

I’m still wondering how the families of those immigrants who enlist will be treated. A number of military personnel must use food stamps (and, yes, the base commissary does accept food stamps) to feed their families. Is that considered being a public charge? If so, why isn’t the money (basic allowance for quarters, cost of living allowance, station housing allowance, etc.) coming from the government and predicated on the service member’s family situation considered a public charge? It’s all government money, right?

Yes, it’s all government money. The difference is in how mean you want to be. And Trump is nothing but a bully. You saw wonderful visual proof of that when he attempted to physically bully Clinton during the debate. This latest nonsense from the Trump administration is just more bullying. And his base, who are, basically (heh) wannabe bullies, are lapping it up.