Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“The Trump administration on Saturday said it would propose making it harder for foreigners to come to the United States or remain there if they have received or are likely to receive public benefits such as food aid, public housing or Medicaid.” (Reuters)
The Immigration and Nationality Act specifies that individuals likely to become a “public charge” are inadmissible for entry or permanent resident status.Currently, the only benefits considered are those that provide direct cash benefits. The proposed rule would include many other non-cash benefits in the determination. (DHS)
The left argues that the sentiment behind these restrictions is contrary to American ideals, and will be harmful in the long run.
The right supports restricting benefits for immigrants, but some question whether this rule is the best way to accomplish that.
“So much for welcoming the tired, poor and huddled masses... The proposed rule is punitive, mean-spirited and self-defeating. This nation has been built with huge contributions from immigrants who arrived with nothing, needed a hand for a while and eventually prospered."
Washington Post
“On its surface, the new proposal looks like an effort to shift U.S. immigration toward high-skilled workers... [but] many smart, talented people come to work in the U.S. without many financial resources. Instead of dollars in the bank, their true asset is their human capital...
Immigrant entrepreneurs could no longer use food stamps as they struggle in shabby garages to create the company that becomes the next Google or the next Intel. Since immigrants tend to be much more entrepreneurial than the native-born, the new rule could deal a heavy blow to American economic dynamism.”
Bloomberg
Furthermore, “scaring vulnerable populations off public assistance is likely to cost much more in the long run, in part because neglecting preventive health care and basic medical problems makes patients only more expensive to treat down the road."
New York Times
The right supports restricting benefits for immigrants, but some question whether this rule is the best way to accomplish that.
“The centuries-old public-charge principle is not a moral critique. A foreigner with a sixth-grade education and a family of five may be a wonderful human being, a loving husband and father, a hard worker, and a fervent Christian — but... he is unlikely to be able to feed his children without help from the government. For our fellow citizens, such assistance is justified... But what justification can there be for admitting people from abroad who can’t pay their own way?...
“There are hundreds of millions of people abroad who want to move here, and however many of them we decide to accept, we should at least make sure they can pay their own bills... The level of immigration certainly won’t decrease [as a result of this rule], because the waiting lists are so long that anyone barred from immigrating would simply be replaced by the next person in line.”
National Review
Some argue that “this rule will harm taxpayers by denying visas to immigrants who even the government predicts will be largely self-sufficient in the United States... [the rule] ignores the degree to which immigrants support themselves. It adopts a flat rate standard: If the government predicts that they will use $2.50 per person per day for a family of four in benefits, it will ban them from the country."
Washington Examiner
'Mate, what just happened?' Seal slaps kayaker in face with octopus.
The Guardian
