No Poor Immigrants - Trump

[Iggy]

I see people took the public charge issue and ran with it. Now for a touch more meat…

Real life example here. I am hoping to sponsor my fiancée and two step kids (ages 18 and 7) for immigration once certain details can be worked out. As a part of that process I will need to file an affidavit of support, Form I-864. Per Form I-864 if I sign and the form is submitted in support of her immigration application (pdf at link):

… these actions create a contract between you and the U.S. Government. …

Under this contract, you agree that, in deciding whether the intending immigrant can establish that he or she is not inadmissible to the United States as a person likely to become a public charge, the U.S. Government can consider your income and assets as available for the support of the intending immigrant.
…
If you do not provide sufficient support to the person who becomes a lawful permanent resident based upon a Form I-864 that you signed, that person may sue you for this support.

If a Federal, state, local, or private agency provided any covered means-tested public benefit to the person who becomes and lawful permanent resident based upon a Form I-864 that you signed, the agency may ask you to reimburse them for the amount of the benefits they provided. If you do not make the reimbursement, the agency may sue you for the amount that the agency believes you owe.
…

The instructions state certain benefits are excluded from this limit per law. Go look at that law and… it is stuff like emergency disaster relief supplies, battered women’s services, food stamps only for kids, and public health immunizations. Nice to know we aren’t checking immigration paperwork before saving hurricane victims, not making a woman choose between being beaten and getting a green card for herself and her kids, not making the immigrant kids starve (but ok to starve the adults?), and we’re not going to let the immigrant kids get measles and f— up our herd immunity.

As a sponsor my obligation extends until the immigrant completes 40 work quarters or becomes a US citizen. Divorce does not terminate this obligation. If the kids never work and never naturalize my obligation never ends. And so on. And this is the legal way of doing things.

So the idea of refusing immigration benefits because an applicant already accepted means tested benefits is not new. It’s not Trump. It was implemented in 1996. Signed into law by Bill Clinton. They can pay back the means tested benefits in order to qualify for the immigration benefits. I would have to for my family.

[Monty]

@Monty

If you do a quick search of threads I’ve started, you might note that I’m, shall we say, a tad concerned about how people are treated. Well, I’m especially concerned by how our government treats someone. It’s bad enough we still have far too many people who consider someone who happens to “look different” to be foreign, to not be American, to not “belong here” even if the target’s family has been in the US for generations longer than the bully’s family. As I just said above, this is bullying by Trump. His supporters love it because Trump’s targets happen to be wannabe bullies who want to bully those people. The ironic thing is that Trump isn’t actually helping the majority of his supporters; he’s helping “his own kind” (if you know what I mean).

The bolded word should be supporters.

[JKellyMap]

Iggy, that’s interesting — thanks for sharing. You’ve reminded us that, for addressing whatever harm has been done by not-yet-citizens using certain benefits, there is a middle ground between “blocking the path to residency or citizenship” and “no consequences” — such as, requiring partial or full repayment.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Iggy

I see people took the public charge issue and ran with it. Now for a touch more meat…

Real life example here. I am hoping to sponsor my fiancée and two step kids (ages 18 and 7) for immigration once certain details can be worked out. As a part of that process I will need to file an affidavit of support, Form I-864. Per Form I-864 if I sign and the form is submitted in support of her immigration application (pdf at link):

The instructions state certain benefits are excluded from this limit per law. Go look at that law and… it is stuff like emergency disaster relief supplies, battered women’s services, food stamps only for kids, and public health immunizations. Nice to know we aren’t checking immigration paperwork before saving hurricane victims, not making a woman choose between being beaten and getting a green card for herself and her kids, not making the immigrant kids starve (but ok to starve the adults?), and we’re not going to let the immigrant kids get measles and f— up our herd immunity.

As a sponsor my obligation extends until the immigrant completes 40 work quarters or becomes a US citizen. Divorce does not terminate this obligation. If the kids never work and never naturalize my obligation never ends. And so on. And this is the legal way of doing things.

So the idea of refusing immigration benefits because an applicant already accepted means tested benefits is not new. It’s not Trump. It was implemented in 1996. Signed into law by Bill Clinton. They can pay back the means tested benefits in order to qualify for the immigration benefits. I would have to for my family.

Was this always the case? I thought there used to be a sunset provision on the support obligation (5 years I think) after which they would eligible for means tested programs.

[Cheesesteak]

@Buck_Godot

The problem with this is that the line isn’t “Takes more than they give” its “takes anything at all”. Given that the US government is subsidizing employers so that they can underpay their workers, a large portion of our economy is supported by workers who need assistance.

I think this is a huge point. From a high level, I considered public assistance as a useful way to ensure that those who have significant needs (a family to support) get the equivalent of a ‘living wage’, while allowing the wage structure to go below that level, particularly for those with fewer needs (singletons, retirees, second earners). It allows market flexibility that a high minimum wage does not.

But, that allowance is now being wielded as a cudgel. It isn’t equivalent to forcing a high minimum wage, it’s an indicator that you’re a “drain on society”.

I guess I need to quit thinking this way and jump onto the living wage bandwagon, not because it’s better for the economy, but because we’re using programs as a weapon against the poor.