Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, August 12, 2019

Trump administration rules that could deny green cards to immigrants who use Medicaid, food stamps, housing vouchers or other forms of public assistance are going into effect, potentially making it more difficult for some to become U.S. citizens.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Federal law already requires those seeking green cards and legal status to prove they will not be a burden to the United States, or what's called a "public charge," but the new rules, made public on Monday, detail a broader range of programs that could disqualify them.

In general, immigrants are a small portion of those receiving public benefits. For example, non-citizen immigrants make up only 6.5 percent of all those participating in Medicaid. More than 87 percent of participants are native-born. The same goes for food assistance: Immigrants make up only 8.8 percent of recipients, and more than 85 percent of participants are native-born.

"Without a single change in the law by Congress, the Trump public charge rules mean many more U.S. citizens are being and will be denied the opportunity to live together in the U.S. with their spouses, children and parents," said Ur Jaddou, a former Citizenship and Immigration Services chief counsel who's now director of the DHS Watch run by an immigrant advocacy group. "These are not just small changes. They are big changes with enormous consequences for U.S. citizens."

Cruelty isn't a bug in the process, it's a feature to further sow internal fear within the communities, and public anger against the communities affected the most.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-08-12 10:47 AM | Reply

I'd prefer if the British dude fleeing the chaos of Brexit to live in the US wasn't a burden on the US.
Could you explain why you beleeve that importing poverty is in the best interest of our country?

#2 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-12 11:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The change is not anywhere near as big as the drama queen article is trying to make out.

#3 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-08-12 12:01 PM | Reply

Cruelty isn't a bug in the process, it's a feature to further sow internal fear within the communities, and public anger against the communities affected the most.
#1 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

No, Tony, just stop.

Hopefully the days of illegal immigrants committing identity fraud to get slave wage jobs and federal benefits will soon be over.

With black unemployment at its lowest in history, Democrats want new ghetto residents. It ain't happening.

#4 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-12 12:05 PM | Reply

Didn't even know this was possible .... interesting ...

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-08-12 12:12 PM | Reply

And just to be clear, these are LEGAL immigrants who have held gainful employment within the US and paid their taxes, including FICA. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I read it, if these people - who often take some of the hardest and least attractive jobs available - should find themselves out of work for an appreciable time, they would lose their path toward citizenship simply for accepting government assistance for which they've themselves contributed toward.

Doesn't sound like the American way to me, but hey, this is Trumplandia now. I guess creating inhumane, unflinching rules is just another day ending in y.

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-08-12 05:01 PM | Reply

@#4 ... Hopefully the days of illegal immigrants committing identity fraud to get slave wage jobs and federal benefits will soon be over. ...

This isn't about illegal immigrants.

Trump Takes Aim at Legal Immigration With Reviews on Public Aid
www.bloomberg.com

...The Trump administration on Monday continued its crackdown on immigration with a new rule that could block immigrants from getting green cards if they've used government benefits or are found likely to use them.

The 837-page regulation -- known as a "public charge" rule -- likely will fall hardest on low-income legal immigrants who perform much of the country's menial labor on farms and in the service industry....


#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-12 05:49 PM | Reply

@#2 ... Could you explain why you beleeve that importing poverty is in the best interest of our country? ...

Could you explain why employers actively choose to hire these legal immigrants instead of US Citizens?

I see no one forcing the employers to eschew US Citizens, so why do they do it?


#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-12 05:54 PM | Reply

#8 | Posted by LampLighter

Trump companies import hundreds of H-2B guest workers every year, even though Americans apply for the jobs.

#9 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-12 06:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This could deny green cards to any immigrant on public assistance. That includes food stamps and Medicaid. They're talking about limiting legal immigration.

#10 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-08-12 06:02 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

I can never understand the constant meanness of conservatives.

#11 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-12 07:35 PM | Reply

Could you explain why employers actively choose to hire these legal immigrants instead of US Citizens?
I see no one forcing the employers to eschew US Citizens, so why do they do it? - #8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-08-12 05:54 PM

The most likely reason is that the unlawful immigrants are willing to accept the low wages offered to do the work.
Your precetption of the problem is skewed. The employers aren't preventing US citizens from doing the work. The price that they're paying for the work is what's stopping citizens from taking the work. If those here unlawfully were not willing to accept those low wages, and weren't vulnerable to blackmail (via calls to ICE) then the employer would either raise wages, find some method of automation or close their businees. There is no other option.

If you are for higher wages for jobs for anyone, American or otherwise, you can't be for unlawful immigrants being here doing work.
If you are for unionization of employees, American or otherwise, you can't be for unlawful immigrants and their vulnerability to ICE.

#12 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-13 07:09 AM | Reply

I can never understand the constant meanness of conservatives. - #11 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-12 07:35 PM

What exactly is mean about not inviting immigrants who are a burden on society to become permanent residents?

#13 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-13 07:12 AM | Reply

They're talking about limiting legal immigration.

Which is exactly the point. They want less brown people, even legal ones, so they couch the policy in economic terms. And sycophants like aBigBore are here to lap up the diarrhea.

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-13 07:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They're talking about limiting legal immigration.
Which is exactly the point. They want less brown people, even legal ones, so they couch the policy in economic terms. - #14 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-13 07:50 AM

Which is precisely false. There is nothing to reduce the number of people arriving as immigrants. It is a decision to allow for the same number of people, but to select those who will not be a financial burden on the country. Painting it as anti-brown people is the work of liars. Brown person with skills that the country needs who follows the laws to enter? Nice to meet you, come on in, you'll do well here. White person, unemployable and poor? I'm sorry, you're not welcome to stay - we'd rather have people who help the country grow and succeed.

#15 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-13 08:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So the talking point has switched from "immigrants don't impose any welfare burden on taxpayers" to "they do, but they should get green cards anyway." Because...Trump.

#16 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-13 11:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Never mind the fact that this is simply a proper enforcement of the 1996 immigration law signed by Clinton.

The thing is the Clinton administration defined "welfare" as simply cash payments. That excludes things like Medicaid, free school lunches, public housing, etc.

No more, and this is the way it should be. Heck, this is the way the laws are written. This is long overdue.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-13 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Painting it as anti-brown people is the work of liars."

Pretending it won't affect brown people more than white ones is the work of morons. And pretending those changing the rules aren't aware of who it affects most is the work of turd polishers.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 12:24 PM | Reply

It's enforcement of the law as it was written, Danforth.

Nulli totally nailed it with #16.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-13 12:34 PM | Reply

It's about damn time they start getting serious about this legislation.

"Pretending it won't affect brown people more than white ones is the work of morons. And pretending those changing the rules aren't aware of who it affects most is the work of turd polishers."

Oh boy, the racism just doesn't stop coming from the Left. Those coming over are mostly non-white. Are you seriously that bad at logic to where you use racism to make your point? That's like saying sending billions in aid to African nations mostly impacts brown people. DUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. But, I guess we should stop sending aid to Africa because it mostly affects brown people, right? I mean, we can't be treating them any differently than we treat whites, which is the entire premise of your statement. Or are we allowed to impact mostly brown people only when it agrees with your opinion? Your racism is truly appalling.

#20 | Posted by humtake at 2019-08-13 12:37 PM | Reply

"It's enforcement of the law as it was written"

It's also against the law to mispronounce the town of Joliet, IL. As TonyRoma has pointed out several times, the cruelty isn't a bug, it's a feature.

"Nulli totally nailed it..."

Nonsense. It's more like "we going to be d!ckks...because Trump.

But keep buying that turd polish by the freight car.

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 12:52 PM | Reply

"Your racism is truly appalling."

Roy Cohn taught DARVO well.

"we can't be treating them any differently than we treat whites, which is the entire premise of your statement"

No it's not, you blithering idiot. It's that folks who invoke and enforce know damned well who they're targeting, and rely on morally malleable Trumperphluffers to eat it up, and then polish it when it comes out.

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 12:55 PM | Reply

Supporters of this change: 'Treat everyone (regardless of race, religion, creed, national origin, gender, sexuality, color, or ethnicity) equally.'
Others: 'That's racist!'

#23 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-13 01:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It's also against the law to mispronounce the town of Joliet, IL. As TonyRoma has pointed out several times, the cruelty isn't a bug, it's a feature.

Yet you advocate taking away all of their employment opportunities by advocating jailing the employers who knowingly or unknowingly hire illegal aliens.

I guess the cruelty really is a feature.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-13 01:19 PM | Reply

Pretending it won't affect brown people more than white ones is the work of morons. And pretending those changing the rules aren't aware of who it affects most is the work of turd polishers.
#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 12:24 PM

Brown people are currently the majority immigrating to our country. Skipping low income/burdensome brown people and instead allowing more highly-skilled/productive brown people is not in any way, shape, or form discriminatory against brown people. I'm not sure why so many here are lying that it is.

#25 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-13 01:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"It's enforcement of the law as it was written"
-----
It's also against the law to mispronounce the town of Joliet, IL.

FFS, that is Snoofy-esque equivalence, Danforth.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-13 01:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Treat everyone (regardless of race, religion, creed, national origin, gender, sexuality, color, or ethnicity) equally."

Riiiiiight. Just like voting.

Requiring certain paperwork is known to affect certain groups more than others, specifically minorities and the elderly, two reliable Democratic voting blocs. Turd polishers pretend this is "treating everyone equally", when you'd have to be an idiot to actually believe as much.

#27 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 01:22 PM | Reply

"Brown people are currently the majority immigrating to our country."

And, compared to whites, they're probably poorer, wouldn't you agree?

And wouldn't you agree this new enforcement will affect poorer people more than richer people?

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 01:23 PM | Reply

Don't like the '96 law?

Change it legislatively.

Until that happens, enforce it.

This law is simply being enforced. Finally.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-13 01:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"that is Snoofy-esque equivalence"

Nonsense. There are lots of laws on the books that aren't strictly enforced. If Trump started jailing folks for mispronunciation, and took away their kids to put them in cages, you'd just claim the law was being enforced as written...right?

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 01:24 PM | Reply

"Change it legislatively."

Riiiiiight.

All the opposition needs is 41 Senators, and you can't change schittt. Aren't you the guy always suggesting folks brush up on civics 101?

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 01:26 PM | Reply

The Illinois thing is unconstitutional. It clearly violates the 1st Amendment. That alone makes it poor equivalence.

Not only the language, but the intent of the law is clear and it's consistent with early laws governing immigration even predating this country's founding.

If you can't support yourself, don't come.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-13 01:27 PM | Reply

"Skipping low income/burdensome brown people and instead allowing more highly-skilled/productive brown people is not in any way, shape, or form discriminatory against brown people. I"

So you're admitting this will affect the poorer more than the richer. That's one of the two.

Now...can you admit the Whites are generally richer than the Browns?

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 01:28 PM | Reply

--Yet you advocate taking away all of their employment opportunities by advocating jailing the employers who knowingly or unknowingly hire illegal aliens.

As soon as you do that the usual suspects will scream it's racist! to deliberately take jobs away from brown people. That's why not a single one of the Democrat candidates will say a word about prosecuting employers.

#34 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-13 01:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Change it legislatively."
Riiiiiight.
All the opposition needs is 41 Senators, and you can't change schittt. Aren't you the guy always suggesting folks brush up on civics 101?

#31 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I am well aware of what it takes to pass a law. It's difficult and oftentimes messy. It's slow and deliberate. It oftentimes requires either plenty of political capital or a strong consensus.

Democrats should make this a campaign issue. "Vote for me and I'll go back to giving illegal aliens all sorts of freebies."

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-13 01:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danforth,

Do you seriously support people immigrating here with the explicit intent to bilk our safety net?

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-13 01:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The Illinois thing is unconstitutional. It clearly violates the 1st Amendment."

So is jailing asylum seekers. Wake us up when Trump gives a ------.

"If you can't support yourself, don't come."

Using that "logic", Britain would've expelled JK Rowling, had she immigrated.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 01:31 PM | Reply

"Do you seriously support people immigrating here with the explicit intent to bilk our safety net?"

No.

Nor do I believe we should employ cruelty once they're here.

But if you look at all the money we spend on the "safety net", you'll notice it's the smallest sliver in the spending pie. Your claim it's their "explicit intent" is a bald-faced lie, and at the least, unprovable...which was your barometer as recently as yesterday.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 01:34 PM | Reply

"I am well aware of what it takes to pass a law. "

Then you know how silly your clam of "change it legislatively" is. You've already admitted as much: Republicans aren't going to go against Republicans.

Try talking out of only one side of your face next time.

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 01:36 PM | Reply

Now...can you admit the Whites are generally richer than the Browns? - #33 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 01:28 PM
I haven't seen any evidence that white immigrants are more wealthy than brown immigrants. Do you have any evidence of it? I'd be happy to read it and see where you're getting the idea from.

This is going beyond point. The brown people who need foodstamps or gov't provided healthcare aren't going to be replaced by white people. They're going to be replaced by brown people who don't need those same services and will be more productive for society. It's not about wealth, it's about skill, education and employability. Are you going to ask me if white immigrants are more skilled, educated or employed than brown immigrants? I'm gonna go with 'no' and if you can prove otherwise, be my guest.

#40 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-13 01:45 PM | Reply

Nor do I believe we should employ cruelty once they're here. - #38 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 01:34 PM

I'll ask you the same question I posed earlier:
'What exactly is cruel about not inviting immigrants who are a burden on society to become permanent residents?

#41 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-13 01:48 PM | Reply

"I am well aware of what it takes to pass a law. "
----
Then you know how silly your clam of "change it legislatively" is. You've already admitted as much: Republicans aren't going to go against Republicans.
Try talking out of only one side of your face next time.

#39 | POSTED BY DANFORTHK

My claim isn't silly at all. If this is that pressing of an issue, do what it takes to change it legislatively.

You're just pissed that it's not a pressing issue and in fact it's one that likely enjoys majority support.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-13 01:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#42 I don't know why a "K" ended up after your screen name. It wasn't deliberate and it's not a snub.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-13 02:01 PM | Reply

"I'm not sure why so many here are lying that it is."

Great...your "First, let's pretend we're all stupid" premise.

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 02:02 PM | Reply

" If this is that pressing of an issue, do what it takes to change it legislatively. "

It's clearly not a pressing issue, to Mitch McConnell. Why are you pretending there is some other barometer?

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 02:04 PM | Reply

It's clearly not a pressing issue, to Mitch McConnell. Why are you pretending there is some other barometer?

#45 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Well, then Democrats better win some elections then. Or, just win the White House and roll this enforcement back.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-13 02:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I haven't seen any evidence that white immigrants are more wealthy than brown immigrants. Do you have any evidence of it?"

Just world history.

And math.

And Trump's proclivity.

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 02:05 PM | Reply

" then Democrats better win some elections then."

Nice to see you finally admit "change it legislatively" ranks with "make the sun set in the east".

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 02:07 PM | Reply

"I'm not sure why so many here are lying that it is."
Great...your "First, let's pretend we're all stupid" premise.
#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 02:02 PM

No, I don't know why so many here are lying about it being a racist thing.
I suspect that it's because they are trying to drive a false narrative that it is racist because they are using it as a bludgeon that they try to use in most any instance where they can't successfully debate a position on the merit of facts. But I don't know that to be true.
This could be the 1 time in 100 where they aren't.

#49 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-13 02:12 PM | Reply

Just world history.
And math.

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 02:05 PM
And a citation? Or is it just something you feel strongly?

#50 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-13 02:13 PM | Reply

"And a citation? "

Sorry, pal, but if you can't look at world history to date, including the patterns of inheritance over history, and conclude white immigrants to America are, in general, wealthier than brown immigrants to America, you're too stupid to debate.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 02:17 PM | Reply

So you have no evidence to back up your strongly held, yet ignorant, feeling.
Understood.

#52 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-13 02:22 PM | Reply

Mexico has the same EXACT law.

Why aren't you Democrats busting their balls?

#53 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-08-13 02:31 PM | Reply

" then Democrats better win some elections then."
Nice to see you finally admit "change it legislatively" ranks with "make the sun set in the east".

#48 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

No. Change it legislatively necessitates winning elections first.

But, you enjoy being combative purely for the sake of being combative so that was lost on you.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-13 02:43 PM | Reply

it's consistent with early laws governing immigration even predating this country's founding.
If you can't support yourself, don't come.

#32 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-08-13 01:27 PM | REPLY

the whole point of our nations existence is that the laws predating it were unjust. The founding fathers threw out the idea of restricting immigration and the nation was just fine for 120 years. Then the conservatives got scared of the chinese hoard and started us down the path to caged children at the border.

#55 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-08-13 02:51 PM | Reply

"strongly held, yet ignorant, feeling."

Avigdore is a liar.

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 03:18 PM | Reply

The founding fathers threw out the idea of restricting immigration and the nation was just fine for 120 years.
#55 | POSTED BY HATTER5183

That was before there was such thing as welfare.

You either worked or you didn't eat.

#57 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-13 03:34 PM | Reply

That was before there was such thing as welfare.
You either worked or you didn't eat.

#57 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2019-08-13 03:34 PM | REPLY

Republicans don't do history

In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.

#58 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-08-13 04:54 PM | Reply

Ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing

It is a shame that you meeting the definition of the word ignorant offends you so much, Danforth.

#59 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-13 04:58 PM | Reply

Once again Conservatives miss the point, on the side of meanness.

Our country is the richest in the world, yet we can't help poor people.

Conservatives love to pass and enforce laws that target poor people, strip them of resources and dump them in prisons.

I just can't fathom the hatred that must be in their hearts. Each immigrant, each poor green card holder, is a human being with a story, with family, friends and loved ones. View them as humans and help them for ----- sake. Stop viewing these people as "less than".

Conservatives and especially those of the libertarian ilk, talk about how they would do anything to better themselves and/or protect their loved ones from danger. Yet when they see that spirit in action, they perceive them as criminals and evil hordes. These are people looking for a better life. Help them, it will make you a better person.

#60 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-13 05:21 PM | Reply

What exactly is mean about not inviting immigrants who are a burden on society to become permanent residents?
#13 | Posted by Avigdore a

I can't explain it to you if you view people in need as burdens.

#61 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-13 05:22 PM | Reply

Never mind the fact that this is simply a proper enforcement of the 1996 immigration law signed by Clinton.
The thing is the Clinton administration defined "welfare" as simply cash payments. That excludes things like Medicaid, free school lunches, public housing, etc.
No more, and this is the way it should be. Heck, this is the way the laws are written. This is long overdue.
#17 | Posted by JeffJ a

Here is an exemplar of conservative selfish dogma. A perfect example of conservative meanness.

They believe some people are unworthy of healthcare and food for children.

Your soul is black jefe.

#62 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-13 05:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nothing makes a republican happier than taking food from children.

#63 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-13 05:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Nothing makes a republican happier than taking food from children.

#63 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS "

Profound.

#64 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-13 05:37 PM | Reply

Never mind the fact that this is simply a proper enforcement of the 1996 immigration law signed by Clinton.
The thing is the Clinton administration defined "welfare" as simply cash payments. That excludes things like Medicaid, free school lunches, public housing, etc.
No more, and this is the way it should be. Heck, this is the way the laws are written. This is long overdue.
#17 | Posted by JeffJ a

Food Stamps aren't a welfare program. They are a Nutrition program that falls under the direction of the USDA. WANT TO TRY AGAIN??

#65 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-08-13 05:44 PM | Reply

So the talking point has switched from "immigrants don't impose any welfare burden on taxpayers"

Nobody ever said that about legal immigrants, you lying POS.

#66 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-13 05:47 PM | Reply

this is the way the laws are written. This is long overdue.

I would bet large sums of money that you've never read the law you're talking about and are simply regurgitating something you heard or read elsewhere.

#67 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-13 05:48 PM | Reply

Don't blow a gasket, Violent Joe.

#68 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-13 05:50 PM | Reply

Don't blow a gasket, Violent Joe.

#68 | Posted by nullifidian

Don't post anything worth reading, nullischittian.

#69 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-13 06:02 PM | Reply

First, the people in question are LEGAL immigrants who've already been gainfully employed and have paid taxes into the US' coffers. Where in the US can a single parent making $7.25 an hour afford to pay for rent and living expenses based on a 40 hour work week? The answer is almost, if not NOWHERE! We know this.

What if this person has a child? Can they pay for daycare and support their family working 60 hours a week at $7.25? What about 80 hours a week? Are you really saying that any legal immigrant - most of whom start at the bottom of our economy - who needs safety-net public assistance should be denied a path to legal citizenship? Do you know one of the other requirements for these immigrants is that they must have private health insurance too? WTF? Really, they are supposed to be self sufficient upon arrival while earning very little and paying for private health insurance? GTFOH!

These are anti-immigrant regulations, full stop. There is no argument here.

#70 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-08-13 06:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here's the thing - they aren't being denied any of these things. They just can't get a green card if they are on government assistance. Nothing wrong with that.

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-13 06:19 PM | Reply

Yes it is Jeff. I'd like to see any of us try to start in today's America as an unskilled or nominally-skilled immigrant and NOT utilize services that our own taxes from working here pay for. Why should any taxpayer be denied the opportunity of earning their citizenship because life is difficult at the bottom?

If jobs paid living wages and supporting benefits I might agree with you. No one can keep off assistance, pay for private health insurance and survive at minimum wage.

#72 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-08-13 06:27 PM | Reply

Here's the thing - they aren't being denied any of these things. They just can't get a green card if they are on government assistance. Nothing wrong with that.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-08-13 06:19 PM | REPLY

Says a privileged white conservative man from a wealthy family. You have no clues on how it feels to b in that position. Sad to see but not surprising at this point.

#73 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-08-13 06:40 PM | Reply

"Give me your tired and your poor " who can stand on their own two feet and who will not become a public charge."

I'd like to take credit for this, but this is, no kidding, a quote from Trump Administration official Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

In other words, give us your tired and your poor... who are neither tired nor poor.

www.politico.com

#74 | Posted by bartimus at 2019-08-13 07:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing
"It is a shame that you meeting the definition of the word ignorant offends you so much".
#59 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

My irony meter just exploded.

The guy who has studied all of history, including inheritance patterns, can't seem to believe white immigrants are generally richer than brown immigrants. And he wants to pretend I'm the ignorant one.

Like I said: too stupid to debate.

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-08-13 08:10 PM | Reply

Yes it is Jeff. I'd like to see any of us try to start in today's America as an unskilled or nominally-skilled immigrant and NOT utilize services that our own taxes from working here pay for....

#72 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

They aren't being denied services. They are merely being denied a green card until they are self-sufficient, Tony. Get off the public dole and then become eligible for a Green Card.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-13 08:53 PM | Reply

My question is are they in America as recipients of asylum?

#77 | Posted by Tor at 2019-08-13 08:57 PM | Reply

My question is why are republicans consistently such -----?

#78 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-13 09:08 PM | Reply

Truth,

"Conservatives love to pass and enforce laws that target poor people, strip them of resources and dump them in prisons."

I know conservative people who aren't full of hatred towards the poor.

They do believe a general attitude of lawlessness is not sustainable for the future.

When I start seeing rich democrats pushing to raise taxes on the rich, I'll vote democrat.

Until then Democratic leaders are just posturing playing up to people's emotions and not interested in solving problems.

When they start offering solutions that make sense and not just running down republicans with the same repetitive accusations many of which are exaggerations, I'll listen.

#79 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-08-13 09:16 PM | Reply

"My question is why are republicans consistently such -----?

#78 | Posted by truthhurts"

More importantly, why couldn't the democrats find people who can beat such -----, especially Trump?

#80 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-13 09:17 PM | Reply

I know conservative people who aren't full of hatred towards the poor.

Several conservatives in this very thread are expressing their displeasure at providing healthcare for the poor and food for children, so there is that.

#81 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-13 09:59 PM | Reply

They aren't being denied services. They are merely being denied a green card until they are self-sufficient, Tony. Get off the public dole and then become eligible for a Green Card.


#76 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I really wish you'd actually read the details than get on here with your BS of selective understanding.

Guidelines in use since 1999 referred to a public charge as someone primarily dependent on cash assistance, income maintenance or government support for long-term institutionalization.

Under the new rules, the Department of Homeland Security has redefined a public charge as someone who is "more likely than not" to receive public benefits for more than 12 months within a 36-month period. If someone has two benefits, that is counted as two months. And the definition has been broadened to include Medicaid, housing assistance and food assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

"Without a single change in the law by Congress, the Trump public charge rules mean many more U.S. citizens are being and will be denied the opportunity to live together in the U.S. with their spouses, children and parents," said Ur Jaddou, a former Citizenship and Immigration Services chief counsel who's now director of the DHS Watch run by an immigrant advocacy group. "These are not just small changes. They are big changes with enormous consequences for U.S. citizens."

The point is that as hard as it is to maintain life at the margins of our society, we're telling legal immigrants that if they cannot keep from needing any of the combination (each counted separately) of "Medicaid, housing assistance, and food assistance or SNAP" for more than a total of 12 times in a 3 year period (if one used all 3, the disqualifying time frame would be 4 MONTHS) that person would be denied a green card.

And the larger point is that these people can be employed the entire time and STILL qualify for benefits under each and every program, so the net result is that they are penalized for being poor while contributing taxes that go towards paying for these same benefits to American citizens, yet they are denied that right themselves.

Basically the rules are being rewritten to say that a legal immigrant wanting citizenship better find gainful employment which provides income and benefits far beyond that which tens of millions of working Americans receive in today's economy. We're not asking them to pull their own weight, we're asking them to be superhuman compared to all other working poor people who are citizens. The "public charge" has been changed from the actually needy who can't begin to take care of their own needs without direct financial assistance from the government to the majority of those we call the working poor who utilize the very programs put in place because their full time wages and benefits often don't rise above subsistence levels.

#82 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-08-14 05:55 AM | Reply

Who knew conservatives cared so much about a public charge? I know some tremendous public charges they might want to look into.

The State of Mississippi gets 40% of its budget from the federal government, receives $2.13 for every dollar its citizens pay in federal taxes, and is a tremendous public charge.

The State of West Virginia receives $2.07 for every dollar its citizens pay in federal taxes, and is a tremendous public charge.

Kentucky $1.90, South Carolina $1.71.

What is the plan to deal with these public charges?

#83 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 06:02 AM | Reply

What is the plan to deal with these public charges?

POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-08-14 06:02 AM | REPLY

Don't forget the Military Industrial Complex.

#84 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-08-14 06:51 AM | Reply

I've always enjoyed watching "New Rules" on Bill Maher's show. Never knew it was this powerful.

#85 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-08-14 08:46 AM | Reply

FTA:


Refugees or asylum seekers would be exempt, and the rules would not be applied retroactively

Women who are pregnant and on Medicaid or who need public assistance will not be subject to the new rules during the pregnancy and for 60 days after the birth of the baby.

The Medicare Part D low-income subsidy won't be considered a public benefit. And public benefits received by children up until age 21 won't be considered. Nor will emergency medical assistance, school lunch programs, foster care or adoption, student loans and mortgages, food pantries, homeless shelters or disaster relief.

#86 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-08-14 09:18 AM | Reply

What is the plan to deal with these public charges? - #83 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 06:02 AM
We're a fair nation. We'll not offer them a green card, either.

#87 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-14 09:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#82 Tony,

Nothing you just posted contradicts what I've said.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-14 09:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#87 When will Mississippi learn to stand on its own two feet? Surely this notion doesn't only apply to those seeking green cards. Or if it does...why?

Why are red atates allowed to be far greater public charges than any group of immigrants could ever dream of being?

#89 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 10:27 AM | Reply

Many countries require you show proof of an income [they set the amount] to immigrate/establish residency there, even small countries like Costa Rica.

Here is Mexico as one example:

"By way of an example, if you're a retiree and intend to apply for temporary residency in Mexico, the law stipulates that you need to demonstrate an income per month over the past six months derived from foreign sources (e.g. pension, investments) of at least 300 days' worth of minimum wage (approximately US$1,620*) or have a savings balance equivalent to at least 5,000 days' worth of minimum wage (approximately US$27,000*) over the past 12 months. If you intend to apply for permanent residency you will need to demonstrate an income per month over the past six months of at least least 500 days' worth of minimum wage (approximately US$2,700*) or have savings equivalent amounting to 20,000 days' worth of minimum wage (approximately US$108,000*) over the past 12 months."

www.mexperience.com

Yes, a 'smart' country wants to ensure that people coming there to live not be a fiscal burden on their country/citizens. Obviously the US is not a 'smart' country nowadays.

Now libbies/dems like to quote the poem [The New Colossus] that was added to the Statue Of Liberty, BUT, they never mention that at the time that those words were added there was not welfare for immigrants who came to better their lives through hard work.

#90 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-08-14 10:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Many countries require you show proof of an income [they set the amount] to immigrate/establish residency there

Requiring proof of income is different from restricting the use of social services. Try again.

#91 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 10:45 AM | Reply

Not in my backyard #93845423

D.C. Mayor Bowser and others are raising alarms at the federal government's plans for a shelter for unaccompanied migrant children in Northwest Washington.

#92 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-14 10:55 AM | Reply

Nothing you just posted contradicts what I've said.

The fact you believe so tells us all we need to know about you.

Sad.

The fact you equate economic bridge programs and social services with "self sufficiency" seems to ignore that over 90% of those receiving said benefits are citizens. You ignore that these immigrants have paid taxes just like citizens, which should make them eligible under the same qualifying rules for everyone else without it affecting their possibilities for citizenship. They are being singled out because they might struggle economically as millions of citizens do everyday. So this alone should determine their ability to earn their citizenship? More than 12 benefits in 36 months should disqualify someone, perhaps permanently, from achieving their goal of citizenship regardless of their personal story?

It's been pointed out to everyone that before this policy change, a "public charge" was a person primarily dependant upon direct cash payments, income maintenance or government support for long-term institutionalization. These immigrants were more than just struggling persons at the margins, they arguably were true burdens beyond what they'd contributed themselves. Now we want to penalize people who have themselves self-funded the bridge programs that help them to become successful by making sure they survive in hard times that many face without any fault of their own.

That you cannot see the difference is startling and only shows how your own privilege blinds you to the plight of many trying to follow in your own footsteps.

#93 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-08-14 12:45 PM | Reply

Again, Tony.

You are making an emotional argument and it doesn't contradict the factual claim that I've made.

Get off the dole and then get a green card. This concept has a long history in this country.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-14 01:00 PM | Reply

Sad.

#93 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Shouldn't that be "Sad!"

;-)

#95 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-14 01:01 PM | Reply

"More than 12 benefits in 36 months should disqualify someone, perhaps permanently, from achieving their goal of citizenship regardless of their personal story?"

You're reading something into it that's not there. Even if someone was on benefits the previous year, but their circumstances changed so it's judged that they wouldn't need to rely on that specific set of benefits in the future, then they probably would not be denied if they articulated their case clearly.

Another option is they could have a friend or family member in the U.S. "sponsor" them, which is usually the case when a citizen or permanent resident brings a spouse or family member to the U.S.

#96 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-08-14 01:03 PM | Reply

When will Mississippi learn to stand on its own two feet? Surely this notion doesn't only apply to those seeking green cards. Or if it does...why?
Why are red atates allowed to be far greater public charges than any group of immigrants could ever dream of being?
#89 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 10:27 AM

The notion of not offering green cards only applying to those seeking green cards on government support? Obviously not, we're withholding them from 'public charges' states now. Hadn't you heard?

#97 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-14 03:12 PM | Reply

#97 So you don't care about public charges...just....brown public charges?

#98 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 03:43 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort