The vast majority of Americans want ***less*** immigration, and want a national, mandatory E-Verify to stanch illegal immigration, according to a Harvard (University)-Harris poll this past January. As recently as a decade ago, some Democrats were pushing for the same sorts of measures--as did the late House Watergate Committee icon Barbara Jordan when she ran a commission on immigration reform under Pres. Clinton.
If Ms. Jordan's recommendations had been followed--which included reducing legal immigration to a little more than half a million annually--about half of what it is now, Trump would never have gained the White House. He ran first and foremost on reducing immigration.
If you--the Editorial Board--want to encourage good immigration policy, you'd best follow the recommendations that Harvard University's George Borjas made on these pages last year. They would be both effective and humane.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/opinion/the-immigration-debate-we-nee...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/opinion/trump-immigration-dreamers.ht...
9
Yes - This is obviously who we are....take a good look at yourself America - this is your president, congress, and supreme court.
6
In 1980 and 1981 I worked in Wales (UK) as an engineer for an American owned metal company. I was there to fill a special engineering spot because of my background and knowledge. Unemployment was very high at 17 to 18 percent. Very dark days for the UK. I was there with my spouse and 3 young children. We got full state benefits including child support paid directly to my wife. Full medical coverage etc. Not a penny came out of my pocket – except we paid way more in taxes then we ever saw in benefits. In fact, we paid for a lot of older folks benefits too.
Was a fair system.
6
I am 74 and think this is a good move.
I grew up in NYC and, as I remember even the NYT commented on how the Chinese brought in all their old relatives and immediately trotted them down to sign up for
whatever benefits were available.
I thought it was wrong then and I haven't changed my mind!
A SPONSOR is supposed to pay for their relatives!
Make them pay or Send them back!
12
The Trump Administration is cruel and malevolent. It wages war on children and the weak and poor. It cuts access to healthcare for the sick and poor, it supports huge tax-cuts for the rich. Trump and his officials lie all the time. They represent the new American "axis of evil": Putin's Russia and its dupes and suborned politicians, unaccountable billionaires out to destroy any trace of support for the less privileged, and the Trump family of money-launderers and scam artists who are long-time intimates of mafiosi.
7
“Kirstjen Nielsen said that she expected the rule to “promote immigrant self-sufficiency and protect finite resources by ensuring that they are not likely to become burdens on American taxpayers.” ----- for the uninitiated, just more trumpian smoke screen for bigotry. you’ve gotta hand it to ‘em --- trump and his minions love to wear their racism on their sleeves; so there’s no doubt where they’re coming from. rhetorical question: and what about the public burdens on the american taxpayer from trump’s tax evasion (might as well assume that’s what his refusal to release those tax returns is all about), to his bankruptcy bailouts, to too big to fail (when they do) banks, to coal mining & agricultural govt welfare subsidies driven by Trumpian trade war self-inflicted wounds, to west virginia’s and Appalachia’s cottage industry of fraudulent social security disability claims, and the list of selective native-born american demographic group and corporate and institutional freeloaders goes on? oh, I see: socialism for white nationalists (esp. rich white nationalists like trump), poverty and exclusionary, discriminatory policies for all others.
9
See - it worked. Read the comments. My father was denied such and such because of all the immigrant moochers. It's all their fault.
So it seems that Trump should just round up every single immigrant legal or illegal and send them packing and everyone here will be happy. More for me, not for thee.
And while the over 2000 kidnapped children are in detention with absolutely no indication that the Trump administration is going to ever be able to reunite them with family, we will be spending approximately $750 per day per child. And the costs will rise as they get older. And it seems like the commenters here do not have enough Christian charity whereby they will be fostering these children. So what is to become of them? They need to go too, right? Trump will never give them a green card even when they reach adulthood. What is it that we are expecting to happen to these children?
Until the hate and cruelty stop we will not be able to have a rational discussion about immigration in America. A person can hold 2 thoughts at the same time: A desire for a rational fair and verifiable immigration policy that is also humane and supports family values. There is a middle between hordes overwhelming and throw them all out.
9
To paraphrase Anatole France - The law forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges, begging in the streets, and stealing bread. - Which could literally be the mantra of the modern GOP.
The GOP consistently portrays poverty as some kind of endless, carefree life of ease. Listening to them talk, one would think that these extremely well off politicians are downright jealous of those living in poverty. Proving that, either they don't know or understand the first thing about it, or that they're lying through their teeth.
It's not that the GOP simply doesn't want to help the poor, they actively want to hurt and inflict as much damage on them as possible, "as a deterrent". I have to admit that I find this to be the most cruel and utterly base aspect of the GOP today.
Scrooges, the lot.
8
Xenophobia is an exhibition of a closed mind.
2
Anyone have the stats on how many of those seeking asylum in the US do so as a result of US foreign policy and warmongering driving them out of their home countries?
5
So hopefully they will return home, and until then stay healthy.
1
When Bill Clinton was president, the public had grown disgusted with people who were on welfare for their entire lives. He roused the business community to offer jobs to welfare recipients, and led Congress in passing a law that would stop welfare payments for most individuals after they had been on welfare for 5 years. It was in this atmosphere that Clinton said that people with green cards would not be considered to be wards of the state if they were receiving welfare. Jobs were plentiful, and he likely expected immigrants to get off welfare within 5 years.
The economy has dramatically changed since Clinton was president. Automation and out-sourcing have put a premium on education and skills. Immigrants with little to no education have a hard time supporting themselves and their families. Many need substantial amounts of government assistance for their entire lives.
The Clinton Administration gave green cards and citizenship to people who needed welfare with the expectation that they would soon be supporting themselves. This expectation can no longer be met in the modern economy. Unless we are willing to support large numbers of poorly educated immigrants who could never support themselves, we need to restrict immigration and citizenship to those who have the education and wherewithal to support themselves in our economy.
6
Many supporters of the Trump plan seem to be complaining, in effect, that our present laws about eligibility for public assistance of various kinds are not well enforced. Well, Trump?
This is just the beginning of a Totalitarian State.
People who are hear legally and have green cards and need to use food stamps are simply poor people in need - regardless of country of origin or color of skin.
This new policy starts with green card holders and then goes against poor people whose families have been here years.
Unless, you are poor because of the trade war trump started, then we have billions of dollars to give to you.
We are a country of HAVES -- rich white men in government and corporations and HAVE-NOTS - the rest of us.
Trump and his fawning sycophants don't care about the 99% not super rich like his friends. They don't care that the coal miners die from black lung disease and their families and neighborhoods (and those in proximity of coal smoke belching chimneys) suffer from respiratory diseases and other diseases due to coal ash. Look at what is happening now in North Carolina - flooded open coal ash lagoons poisoning the rivers. So glad I don't live in No. Carolina.
Be warned. Trump loves and supports white supremacists and neo-natzis . Our country looks and smells like Germany 1930's. Be vigilant. Resist this discriminatory policy and must remove this entire administration.
3
"The state can't afford it", is the exact same argument that Nazi's used to exterminate the mentally handicapped in Germany. While the Administration isn't proposing genocide, it is proposing cruel and unusual punishment for legal residents of this country "as a deterrent". Deterrent to what? Poverty?
Odd how the state "can afford": a trillion and a half dollar tax giveaway to the 1% and corporations paid for by the middle class, $5 trillion for a war of choice in Iraq, billions upon billions for a military that is already larger than China's / Russia's / Saudi Arabia's / India's / France's / England's and Japan's combined, $31 billion on farm subsidies, $72 million just on Trump's golfing trips, $4.6 million for Scott Pruitt's security detail, etc, etc, etc.
But, if a poor person gets $40 a week for food, Trump and the GOP think they should be able to get by on $0, you know as an incentive to not be poor - which, of course, for those born with a silver spoon in their mouths, is simply "a personal choice".
The truth is "the state can afford it". It just doesn't want to because praying on the poor and disenfranchised is easy, it sells to the worst kind voters, but most importantly, it embodies the most vile instincts of the modern GOP to inflict as much damage as possible to those who are least able to defend against it.
"Let's gang up on the little guy!", is an attitude bred into the spoiled brats of the privileged from an early age, all the way through to Washington D.C.
5
America is showing its inhumane side! Who would have thought of this ugly phenomenon 20 years ago?
Western society is getting fattened, dumb and cowardly. A real disgrace of mankind. How then will be the reaction if overpopulation on this planet is going on and on? I fear for the worst.
1
America now has a thick callus for all immigrants, courtesy The America First Bullies - who serve Ye Olde Nativist Recipe, who charm the easily charmed, and who weave the warm cocoons of TV box, tea parties, and radio talk.
A real debate, Editorial Board? In 1986, Reagan signed an amnesty bill that DID NOT INCLUDE stiff criminal penalties and strict enforcement AGAINST HIRING. The same desire to undercut Labor's ability to organize for working conditions, benefits, and pay - ALSO SHAPES REPUPLICANS' FUTURE PLANS.
Candidate Trump promised a follow-on plan of "big, beautiful gates" in his wall. Their end game is foreign worker visa-holders to meet employers' needs. It'll be legal to exploit this non-citizen class.
Today's struggling citizens WHO BUY-IN to Trump's SHOW of outrage - will be tomorrow's struggling citizens with targeted Social Security and Medicare benefits TO BE UNBURDENED from the top 1-percent class.
Kirstjen Nielsen's policies dispose of our nation's conscientious immigration procedures (while racking-up-to $750 a day bill PER DETAINEE). The next casualty of our humanity will be our neediest citizens - FOR THE PROTECTION OF "finite resources by ensuring that they are not likely to become burdens on American taxpayers.”
2
@Able Nommer
I married an American and I am waiting. Eventually I will get a green card. At least I hope. Am following all the rules and law. We have paid all fees inherent to my request. My husband had to show he could provide for me. I also can financially support myself. I will not be a burden to the US. So why do so many expect to have an indefinite free lunch? Why do so many come to America and demand free everything. Americans should be outraged by those who abuse the system while expecting citizens to shoulder their expenses and lifestyles.
16
I am mixed on this one. I understand that immigrants actually contribute to the economy and to our future by (among other things) helping stave off the aging of the population. I believe we should take in refugees. Immigrants I've know are incredibly hard-working, dedicated and proud to be becoming American. At the same time, it appears that I myself am unable to emigrate to Canada or New Zealand or anywhere else I might want to go because I am too old, or don't have the kind of profession that allows me to get the kind of job they'd want me to have (tech). I'd be a drain on their social system. I get that. So is it really such an outrage that US policies be in line with those of other developed countries? At the very least, it's a mixed bag.
11
@Syliva When Trump and his administration deny global climate change and then turn around and make it hard for everyone trying for a better life because they have drought and war (weaponry is the U.S.'s largest export), yes, it is wrong.
1
Know who we shouldn't be subsidizing? WALMART etal, Big Ag, the military and the 1%.
Heaven forbid someone needs to EAT.
9
The facts are that immigrants give more to this country than they get from us. The social security payments to a Trump voter is being subsidized by undocumented workers. They pay taxes, but their status prevents them from collecting any benefits. Immigrants who come here "legally" have to go through so many hoops to get a green card, that most Americans (especially Trump voters) would bow out after the first hoop. To be an immigrant, means you have to have wits, be brave, and you have to be strong. Because before you can come to the US, you have to be strong and smart enough to get out of your town. People who leave their home, are the strongest and smartest.
Xenophobia is used by politicians who hide their incompetence by exploiting people's insecurities, and targeting those who can't fight back.
77
@Sandeep you don’t pay taxes if you are working off the books which you have to do if you are illegal unless you are also engaging in identity fraud.
8
A thought: The US has more than 700 modern Atomic Bombs, any 20 to 25 of them would render most, if not all, of our world uninhabitable. Add in the many other A Bombs dropped that would be dropped by other countries with A Bombs, and we have the end of our world.
Tens and tens and tens of billions of dollars are spent each year maintaining and guarding these bombs by each country with A Bombs. This money would have been better used supporting ordinary citizens than on weapons of mass destruction.
We and other countries spend far, far too much on things that are meant only to kill people and far too little to feed and clothe and house people who were not fortunate enough to be born into wealth, like Donald and his ilk.
7
This is just a disgusting display of pandering for the votes of insecure and/or racist whites. There is no immigration problem and there never has been. The fact is that historically, third generation immigrants, illegal or not, more than make up economically for the costs of their forebears.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/opinion/campaign-stops/what-does-immi...
Whatever happened to Trump's [fake] promises on real problems like "“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” and rebuilding our infrastructure. Unless we address these problems, America is done for. Instead, the rich got a massive tax cut and we got a trillion dollar deficit.
4
this is the product of steven miller. all you need to do is read any of these pieces re what miller's boyhood rabbi has to say about him today.
https://www.google.com/search?q=stephen+miller%27s+rabbi&oq=steven+m...
4
@Sam Marcus,
Respect to Steven Miller's rabbi, but Miller is doing this country a great service, I thank him and I am grateful that he is looking out for the welfare of my little great grand daughter who will not have as many opportunities because the country is over taken with illegal immigrants who are bankrupting our social services.
Every time I get to see her and look at her cute little toddler face, I am fearful for her future.
5
Oh Editors? Have you noticed that a majority of the comments to this editorial disagree with your position? Yes, I think you probably have noticed.
12
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" and I will kick them into the gutter, spit on them, and send them back from where they came.
2
My dad came here as a child from Morocco before the civil rights movement. The expectation for immigrants were that they had to be self sufficient within the first 5 years to qualify for citizenship. For the first year they received assistance from their sponsor to find housing and employment but after that they were on their own.
Citizenship is a privilege not a right. While we absolutely need to show compassion for those who truly deserve it we have to be careful with the government benefits we extend to immigrants. We can't allow them to become a burden on an over taxed system that struggles to serve the native born.
If we truly wanted to address the poverty issue in this country then any employer who has a significant portion of their employees on government programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, or housing should be fined to cover the costs to the tax payers. We tend to create the system that enables poverty and then punish the working poor for not being able to get out of poverty. What a country we've become.
16
Are the provisions that used to be in the immigration laws about not allowing in people likely to become public charges and requiring financial support of immigrants by sponsors (if necessary) still on the books?
10
Does this include any federally funded assistance? Title I assistance to public schools? Special education support services for children with disabilities? School lunch? Travel on Amtrak? Do green card holders, who are here legally, now have to keep track of which state or local programs have a federal component? I could go on: tax credits to buy required health insurance under the ACA, home mortgage interest deduction, other forms of "welfare" available to citizens...
2
Good question. How much of a need is there to subsidize immigration?
6
"What’s more, Kaiser estimates that more than eight million children who are citizens but have at least one noncitizen parent will be caught in the cross hairs."
Everyplace you turn in the immigration debate, we come back to the lunacy of Birthright Citizenship. It makes no sense that someone with no right to be in this country can parent a US citizen child.
Birthright Citizenship incentivizes illegal "immigration", incentivizes illegal "immigrants" having children (at taxpayer expense via Medicaid), complicates enforcing immigration law and opens the full array of entitlements to the US citizen child that only exists because of the illegal entry and presence of the parents.
The US and Canada are the last countries in the developed world that still have it. Other smarter countries, better able to grasp facts and act upon them, changed their laws to end it.
20
It really is all captured by the old devide and conquer strategy. The billionaire, the worker and the immigrant get together in a room with 1000 cookies. The GOP eats 999 of them and says to the worker: the immigrant is going to take your cookie. That's 90% of what's going on. The other 10% indicates that we need a better immigration policy.
7
As a US citizen, where in the world or to which country could I and my family immigrate to and just go on the dole? None. Why should others be able to come into the US and become takers?
Why are we, the working class American taxpayer, subsidizing all those who hire illegals or pay immigrants under the table?
19
In the near future many low skilled/paid jobs will become more automated. We do not need any more low skilled immigrants.
15
Is this country now the social worker to the world? It's one thing for someone to end up needing to avail themselves of this country's social safety net. But why would we want people coming to this country to be dependent on it from day one?
When Ellis Island was operating and screening immigrants, they routinely sent anyone likely to become a "public charge" back to their home country. We didn't accept "public charges" then. And that was before we had today's expensive taxpayer funded entitlements programs.
It's worth noting that most of what we think of as our social safety net did not exist before about 1950. When our immigrant ancestors came to this country, they lived or died on their own. If they were successful, they, their families and the country all benefitted. If they starved and died, there was comparatively little societal cost. Today we have a much bigger stake in whether we accept people likely to be successful than at any time in our history. If we can see with our own eyes that someone isn't successful, why would we accept them into this country?
16
Except for two tours in the US Peace Corps from around 1965 to 1971, I've spent almost all of my life from 1971 to now (except most of 1980 when I was mourning the death of my mother) teaching immigrants or poor, native born, Americans in universities, colleges, high schools and middle schools. I've also spent time working in evening classes for immigrants trying to pass the test for Naturalization. I've had a lot of experience with immigrants, including my own mom (who went back to school at the age of 47 to get her high school diploma) and dad.
Most of the schools I've taught in had a large number of either immigrants or poor Americans, and most of them were very serious students, many of whom had part time jobs to help their families. Many, many of my students, especially those who were poor, fought in our wars, One of my best friends in University was an immigrant who died flying rescue planes in Vietnam. Immigrants, in my opinion, express their love of the USA more fervently than native born citizens because they're more grateful for the freedom we Americans enjoy, but many of us seldom acknowledge.
Our country was founded by immigrants from all over the world - some were brought here on slave ships. They were hated and excoriated by the same sort of "Americans" who have expressed their hatred of immigrants in comments to this article. All of us need to be reminded that our Constitution does NOT state "Immigrants not allowed."
7
No, the Constitution does not say "immigrants not allowed." But it does give the American people some say in what their country's immigration policy will be. Apparently, the liberal elite doesn't like that.
12
in response to Ms. Nielsen's justification for this abysmal policy, I'd argue that if resources are finite, it is because the republicans in Congress gave a yet another free pass to the ultra rich with Trump's new tax cut, driving down revenue.
4
How about we find out why these people are living on government subsidies? Those who sought for assistance have gone through a process, when submitting their initial applications. There must have been a criteria that would allow people to apply for aid. Now, we are saying, all these people must be self sufficient. If all these people will no longer receive assistance, what would be their plight?
Should we not give people time to adjust themselves or seek alternatives?
2
These are people here in the US legally. They are susceptable to the same economic factors that might affect everybody else. They might lose their job or suffer pay cuts temporarily due to economic downturns, changes in their industry or company, or just plain old bad luck. Besides a little basic decency, providing some basic economic safety nets provides economic and social stability. You reduce the chances of people sleeping on sidewalks, turning to drugs or alocholism, or resorting to petty crime.
Let’s get real. This isn’t about cost. We never hear about fiscal responsibility from the Trump crowd when it’s massive corporate tax cuts, big defense spending, Trump’s military parade, or building a thousand mile long border wall that can be defeated by a 11 foot ladder or a shovel. There is not a single concern about what we can afford when it comes to $12 billion dollar subsidies for the farm industry to compensate for Trump’s trade war, or subsides for dying industries like coal. It’s only when it comes to doing something that actually helps people and helps stabilize the economy and society that we get all the cries of “how can we afford it!?”
This policy has nothing to do with fiscal responsiblity. It has everything to do with red meat for the Trump base, which is driven crazy by the thought of an America for anybody but themselves.
282
Well said! In addition, it's extremely frustrating to hear immigrants and taxpayers discussed as though they are mutually exclusive. I have paid taxes on a working visa for years while I wait for my green card, including Medicare and Social Security. Does that money not count because it didn't come from a US citizen's pocket?
4
@citybumpkin
" the Trump base, which is driven crazy by the thought of an America for anybody but themselves."
You're right. We built it. It's ours. We can do whatever we want with it.
1
We shouldn't be giving visas to people who are too old or too sick to work. However, temporary food or WIC assistance seems reasonable considering the size of the working poor population.
We shouldn't be providing subsidized housing or healthcare to people who don't have green cards or are citizens.
We don't want to punish children born to impoverished immigrants by cutting food stamps. If someone works and still needs some supplemental food aid, that doesn't sound like a big burden.
3
Birth tourism and the 14th Amendment are draining our benefit coffers. This must be changed some how. We can not allow it any longer. All's one has to do is pop out a baby, done deal.
16
@Elle. Those two issues as well as everify, employee penalties and chain migration have to be part of any immigration overhaul. The democrats will howl, but unless these things are addressed there will be no substantive changes as the last 40 years have shown that everything can be circumvented.
1
This applies to people already in the country?
Denying a Green Card means they will have to stay on welfare, or work for cash under the table.
Isn't the objective to get everyone working legally.
2
In effect we're paying them to come here.
9
Why do we still say "green cards"? They have not been green for a long time. Now they are striped with grey and pink in a pattern apparently designed to resemble the national flag.
1
Good luck with this view. It is a shame that a majority of Americans and the law disagrees with you.
We have enough poor citizens that need our help, we don't need to import any more.
19
Bottom line: It used to be "immigrants" came here, they succeeded, or they failed. The latter often left.
Today, the US Government subsidizes the latter regardless of their contribution to the social and economic vitality of this country.
The USA is a sovereign nation. It ought not encourage "immigration" on the basis of promised economic government-funded welfare. The idea that the USA is stronger some how for doing so, at any level, is ridiculous. It's just simply ridiculous.
19
Trump's xenophobic attack against immigrants has always been about racism pure and simple and stoking the fears held by so many of his supporters that these 'interlopers are dangerous and a drain on our society. It is Trump's way of gaining votes and his followers way of expressing their barely concealed fear of those not 'white' and American. This new regulation focused once again on new comers to our society is one more attempt to brand the other as freeloaders and inferior to 'legitimate' Americans what ever that is in our so called 'open' society.
2
If anyone wants to know the Democrats solution to immigration I direct you to this poster that was plastered all over my neighborhood in Ridgewood, Queens:
https://bit.ly/2mwmc6q
Courtesy of the "Progressive" DSA. Which is it Democrats? Open borders or the welfare state? You can't have both. I say this as a former Democrat now independent, who is completely disgusted with the leftward turn the party has taken.
11
@B. Can't have both?! Both are integral to their entire platform.
3
@B,
Totally agree with your argument.
I left the Democratic Party and became an Independent this spring because I was so concerned about the Democrats pandering to illegal immigration.
Really hated to leave the Democratic Party here in N.C. because I really like our Governor Cooper and I want to see Democrats with more voice in state government.
I am fearful of the Democrats taking over the Congress because of their stand on illegal immigration and I.C.E.
2
Those working legally but don't have a green card, the people to whom this new regulation applies, those people do pay taxes. So maybe, if they are not allowed to receive any benefits, maybe they should be relieved of the burden to pay taxes? That would only be fair.
2
@Robo how many people do you actually and really know who are working legally without a green card? Except for those who are here on a working visa it is an oxymoron.
Since when is trump remotely interested in rational dialogue.
2
Donald J. Trump, you are despicable, a cruel monster in human clothing. Wit republican complicity. This is not the America we knew, now heartless as we speak. The dictum repeated ad nauseum, that America has no friends, just interests, rings truer than ever. Unless we hear voices of reason, and feelings of solidarity, condemning the harshness and inhumanity.
3
This is actually good news. The reality is there is more like 20 million illegals living within our borders right now. And it is growing by 10's of thousands each and every month. Handing out benefits that are supposed to be for US citizens is untenable. Nobody should be coming here who is leeching off of the system. Time to turn the freebie spigot off. After having a baby here it becomes all available to any illegal. ALL of it, even the medical costs of having that baby here.
9
@Elle Actually you're wrong, but don't let statistics stop you.
There were 12.1 million immigrants living in the country illegally as of January 2014, according to the most recent estimate from the Department of Homeland Security. The estimates from two independent groups are similar: The Pew Research Center estimates the number at 11.1 million in 2014, and the Center for Migration Studies says there were 11 million people in 2015 living in the U.S. illegally (see Table 1 in the full report).
That would be about 3.5 percent to 3.8 percent of the total U.S. population in 2014.
The underlying premise of this NYT article is that immigrants will never be self sufficient so taxpayers should suck it up and pay for them now to save themselves money in the longterm: "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."
This is exactly why there is growing opposition to all forms of immigration. Despite the perpetual assertions that we're a nation of immigrants or the "your parents were immigrants to" argument, there's a world of difference between the people who came to the US to carve out a better life by taming the unsettled lands of the Midwest or enduring brutal conditions in the grimy slums of New York and Chicago in the 19th and 20th centuries long before welfare programs even existed, and the immigrants of today who expect housing assistance, free healthcare, food stamps and more.
So much for the "hardworking" immigrant trope the Times loves to assert. Out of the millions of people who try to legally immigrate to the United States we ought to reward those who want to come to actually work for a better life not those coming with their hand out looking to ride the coattails of an overtaxed, shrinking middle class.
14
Yet another hate filled policy based on a racist, xenophobic, politics of resentment. Even better, Pew Research's latest study on public sentiment about immigration, goo.gl/r6g5fK, reveals the move to be precisely opposite a decade long trend toward easing immigration policy.
1
Give me your rich, your well-connected, the cream of the crop from your elitist societies, especially if they're likely to vote Republican. Keep the wretched refuse--we're trying to get rid of our own.
1
Every day we get closer to a full form if fascism which resembles in many ways the version that was developed in the mid and late 30’s.
Then the Gypsies became a first target and were chased, arrested and or prosecuted, soon followed by Jews who got attacked, unable to do their work and close their jobs, until the horrific decision was made by a small group of National Socialist leaders in the military to terminate all Jews.
Trump and his aides and cabinet members have made a similar type of decision, the Trump government hates immigrants, hates men and women of color and arrest them in large numbers,
put them in jail, separate families and them kick them out of the country.
We always wondered why the German voters did nor respond stronger against their new leader.
We can now ask ourselves why the American voters don’t throw him out.
And all that caused by a racist fear monger who rules with immortality, direct and indirect threats in a way that is the antithesis of christianity.
He didn’t get his wall with Mexico, now he is ‘walling’ in all of America in full isolation of the rest of the world.
Typical double standard to Trump culture. When it’s a member of Trump’s overwhelmingly native-born white tribe that’s out of work and collecting welfare, it’s everybody’s fault except his: “immigrants stole his job” or “coastal liberal elites don’t care about him” or “China!”
When it’s somebody else outside the tribe that’s out of a job and collecting welfare, then it’s “welfare queens” and “moocher.” Are these immigrants - here legally, mind you - immune from the same employment factors that affect everybody else? Why not give them a chance to get back on their feet?
The real “why not” is that Trump’s tribe sees America as theirs alone. That’s why after pretending it’s only about “enforcing our immigration laws,” they are also going after legal immigrants.
3
As recently as 1980 births to illegals in the u.s. were ~30,000/yr. it now averages 300,000 per year. These kids are eligible for all the welfare benefits as they are citizens. In LA county, these are the majority of births at the tax payer supported hospitals. There is a real and growing cost to ignoring/subverting our laws and we should be talking about it honestly.
12
People who need assistance most often tend to be people working down in the depths of the pay scale, with one or several jobs that often provide little security or benefits. Low-skilled immigrants fill many of those jobs, as well as dirty, dangerous ones like in the agricultural and meat-packing industries. Incidentally, we consumers have lower prices because implicitly accept people working on the edge of bankruptcy.
SO, the Trump Administration seems to be saying they want Americans to fill those jobs, while we only allow immigrants in if they will better compete for the more skilled, higher-paying jobs.
Got that?
Look at the following two charts of projections from the census bureau for the US population in coming decades.
By 2035, Americans over 65 will outnumber children
https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2018/comm/historic-first.html
And Americans are not producing big families - here's a chart some Republicans really will fear, since they hate immigrants and don't want to fund our safety nets by fairer tax policies.
https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2018/comm/international-mi...
But Trumpists forget that children of low-skill immigrants go on to better jobs, pushed by their parents. Their taxes more than cover any services needed by the first generation.
We need them as the "native" Americans age, retire, and need well-funded systems. It's called investing in the future.
2
@b fagan. The Ponzi scheme of ever more people to fund the last generation is insane. Ex when does it end? How many 10s of millions do we need to fund the retiring generations? Does it ever end? What about the environmental cost of just adding millions more Americans forever? It's a physical impossibility. Europe and Japan have been fine with falling populations and in fact has better retirement system than we do.
9
This policy makes perfect sense, though not to the crowd that wants us to be bound by the words of poet Emma Lazarus instead of rational public policy. "Give us your tired, your poor..." no longer makes sense. The United States now has over 300 million people living here, of which a significant (and too large) percentage are already poor. Why would we want to use limited public resources to support foreign nationals living here, when we don't have enough to tend to our own citizens who also desperately need help? Sorry--a stricter immigration policy is the key to the President's success for a reason. It's logical and a significant percentage of voters who show up at the polls strongly agree with it.
10
It is the unrestrained venom with which Trump makes his hateful decisions which worries me, as well as his destruction of Democracy in America.
He is a hateful person with zero empathy for anyone else. A Mother's Nightmare, he is a narcissist, a liar, a braggart and a cheat, and he is turning America into a version of himself.
When are we going to stop him?
2
You cannot immigrate to liberal Canada unless you pass their very stringent sniff test. They don't take in too many who cannot pay their own way. We should follow in their footsteps.
15
Maybe legal and illegal entrants must learn that there is no such thing as a free lunch. When word gets out in their native countries that the express gravy train has been stopped, there will be a drop of illegals flowing over our borders. We pay our taxes to support Americans first and foremost.
11
I am profoundly disturbed that this latest absurdity from the Trump administration seems to have pulled what is left of our attention completely away from the question of what is happening to the children who were separated from their parents.
If you dig, you can find bits of information, but the news cycle has moved on.
I have a three year old grandson and I watched what happened with him when his mother was out of town for a week. It was terrifying.
Damn it all! What is wrong with all of us? We should be shouting down the walls of the White House demanding that every resource be focused on an effort to reunite every one of those families--regardless of the circumstances.
And here we are, commenting on yet another new rule designed to create pain and suffering.
Let's stop leaping from problem to problem and solve just one. Find those children and find their parents. Do it now.
We are a nation of cynics and we all seem to have a fairly severe attention deficit disorder.
3
Newspapers and the media in general never underline the distinction that some immigrants have NEVER been on this country without a green card. Instead, everybody who has come here recently enough to still be in the process of assimilating his/her new country is bundled together with those who emigrated here and whose legal status is still in limbo. This causes confusion at the least, and stigmatizes those who simply CHOOSE to move to the United States by using legal and established procedures for doing so.
As a result, I have chosen to call myself an Expat instead of an immigrant, even though, as a naturalized American, I prefer the latter designation because I consider it more romantic and defining of my life story arc.
2
This has nothing to do with cost. It is fear mongering and lies from Trump, which proved to work very well for him in the election.
2
When our grandparents came to this country there were no handouts, no welfare, they came knowing they had to find work to support themselves and their families, this was their mindset, and that's what they did, and look at the country they made. Now we have these new immigrants, and the minute they arrive they are given everything, and they become dependent, this is why Donald Trump won and he will continue to win as long as democrats foolishly tie their success and fortunes to an issue like immigration which is a hill they are fighting and dying on for very little gain, the proverbial 'hamburger hill'. The democrats need a new general, with a new strategy or they are not just going to lose the battle, they are going to lose the war.
16
Seems like one of the best ways to immediately improve living conditions, civility an opportunity within the United States would be to deport Kirstjen Nielsen, Steven Miller, Trump, Pence, McConnell, Ryan, Frunobulax and the rest of their enablers who seem to conveniently forget their ancestors were also immigrants. Unfortunately, we wouldn’t be able to find anyone to take them ... although Putin might be up for it.
Our economy has been and is driven by immigrants as is our diversity of food choices and the richness of our culture. This is one more (“last”?) step taken by fearful “whites” and Republicans on the path to losing their white privilege. The lack of humanity espoused in many of these comments is beyond sad. The facts and statistics are very clear, immigrants are a net positive to the country.
3
Why are we blaming poor people for being poor?
We should be blaming the government for keeping the minimum wage low and businesses for paying barely subsistence wages.
120
@EmmettC. The government certainly plays a roll in this. Otoh, importing poor, uneducated, unskilled people into a country where there is less and less need for people with this "skill" set, is insane.
7
@EmmettC
Start a business and pay people what you feel is fair.
3
@EmmettC You have cause and effect backwards. Businesses are paying these wages because there's an abundance of cheap labor available on the market. Get rid of the unskilled immigrants, and the wages will have to go up.
8
There is of course another way to go about this, and that is to offer as much help and as many programs to those on public assistance (whether they are an immigrant or not) to get off public assistance.
That is only a great investment in the foundation of a great society - it's people.
2
@FunkyIrishman, Tell that to the Walton family, the biggest social welfare cheats. Ever hear of the working poor?
2
Everything about The Con Don and his Robber Baron administration is "unhealthy" to say the least.
I am happy to report that if The Con Don fires FBI Deputy Director Rob Rosenstein, or forces him to resign, there is a MASSIVE march in the planning stages. It's called Trump Is Not Above The Law and over 400,000 people around the world have already signed up. The link is below. Look at the "partners" - the top democracy-building organizations in America are promoting the march.
WE THE PEOPLE must show The Con Don, his International Mafia Top 1% Global Financial Elite Robber Baron/Radical religion Good Old Boys and Girls Cabal that they will NOT destroy OUR United States of America and OUR world with their insatiable, mentally deranged lust for power.
Not now. Not ever again.
https://www.trumpisnotabovethelaw.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-respons...
5
Some of the comments are little more than jingoism. But the discussion is important.
What we need is comprehensive immigration reform -- a clear policy that addresses all our economic and humanitarian needs.
But, Congress finds it more profitable to keep the issue alive for political purposes. Every position comes with a truckload of donations from interested parties.
Notice too, that rural counties have different views and needs from urban centers. We must accommodate these concerns even as we recognize that 85% of us live in cities. We need an expanded workforce to pay taxes, but politicians refuse to sit down and compromise.
When politics becomes obstructive of good government, it's time for the party to dissolve.
3
@OG
''But, Congress finds it more profitable to keep the issue alive for political purposes. ''
- correction, republicans want to keep the issue alive
In 2013, and with wide bipartisan support and under the direction of Democrats and President Obama, there was a bill that passed the Senate that outlined all of the reforms for immigration, security and the like.
It was not even brought up for a vote in the house (even though it would have easily passed) because the speaker and republicans want the issue more than they do the solution.
Gentle reminder.
7
This policy makes sense. We need immigrants that will come to the US and make an immediate impact on our economy in a truly positive way. In the 21st Century the US will have to continue to monitor legal immigration, review asylum cases that are many times based on economics rather than real danger, and stop trying to be the worlds dumping ground . May sound harsh but we have to protect our economy and our borders.
10
NYT, you could do a great service to public discourse in the area of immigration if you created a factual primer on immigration, asylum, refugees, benefits, birth tourism, immigrant sponsorship, and other related topics. As you can see from the comments on this article, people think illegal immigrants on Medicaid get better treatment for free than citizens on Medicare do. People think illegal immigrants get food stamps (Do they? They can on behalf of their citizen children, but not for themselves. Not something you learn on FOX). How rigorous is the screening process for elderly immigrants brought in by their children regarding financial support (it seems pretty well known per the comments below that immigrants bring in elderly parents and then sign them up for social security and Medicaid as soon as they can. Is this true?). There is a ton of misinformation out there. Clearing it up would be a great service.
9
This is from May 2018:
Los Angeles County has an extreme shortfall of affordable housing... and 568,255 new units are needed to satisfy the demand of lower-income renters.
This is from a scholarly report in 1989:
"Arrivals of new immigrants and the secondary migration of other immigrants to the Los Angeles area are estimated to be as many as 180,000 each year in the 1980s..."... three-quarters of the immigrants were low-income minorities who are more likely to live in overcrowded enclaves and pay disproportionately high rents. Other data suggest that immigrants--many of them undocumented and Hispanic--are both victims of and contributors to the housing crisis."
"While the area's housing problems require national and local responses in land use, finance, and development policies, immigration measures also must be considered... Other options include: --rigorous screening of aliens claiming entitlement to publicly-assisted housing --."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27503143?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
11
@Talbot, If they were deported a whole lot of housing would become available to American citizens. Millions.
9
I am definitely not what most people would call conservative however someone would have to explain to me how promoting or encouraging immigrants that can support themselves is racist or wrong. Every country that I have considered for emigration requires that I have a substantial source of income and/or invest a substantial (7 figures) amount in a business that creates jobs for nationals. I spent a month in Canada last year and the major cities there are more ethnically diverse than the US and Canada has a strict system for measuring the employability/suitability of immigrants.
19
@Rob F Canada only allows citizens and legal immigrants to attend public schools in 12 of its 13 provinces. (Ontario is the exception.) When your child can't go to school, one probably thinks twice about overstaying one's visa.
Another fact that most Americans who view Canada as a benevolent socialist paradise ignore.
2
@Burke Unless something has changed in the 3 years I moved to NYC from Toronto, Ontario requires birth certificate or proof of legal status to enroll in public school as well as to get health care.
1
If you are not here legally, you are here illegally. Leave. No benefits. Perhaps accommodation for dreamers.
If you are not a Bona fide refugee, you should not be allowed to come here. I’d even demand a bond from family sponsoring visitors to make sure mom and dad leave in 3 months or else we seize your house. We have enough Americans on the payroll. We do not need more
6
Let's call this what it really is, not Trump policy but Steven Miller policy, he runs this show behind the scenes
3
Obscene. What about current actual citizens who are recipients of food stamps, etc.? Maybe we should do something about those scofflaws as well. This current Republican administration is sick.
3
Food stamps should be available for short-term emergencies, not as a long-term support. Our country already has too many American families who seem to be permanently dependent on food stamps . Social services needs to refer the adults in these families for further education or training and offer them and their children all of the necessary supplemental support programs from day care to Medicaid to help them until they can make it on their own.
Training programs and support systems are limited, as is government subsidized housing. There is never enough for all of our citizens. What we do not need is more people who are in need of these government support programs.
People were never supposed to bring their relatives to the U.S. with the expectation that they would become dependent on welfare. The proposed law insures that anyone who applies for citizenship would not have used a government welfare program (with the exception of a few programs such as WIC) for the 3 years prior to applying for citizenship. Foreigners with little education and no way of fully supporting themselves should not be moving here with the expectation that the American taxpayer will be taking care of them for the rest of their lives.
We already have too many citizens who are dependent on welfare. We need to focus our attention and resources on helping them become independent rather than accepting ever-greater numbers of poor people who need services.
37
@ann
I'm dependent on food stamps, going on years now. There will be no "helping them become independent" unless you simply want to give everyone a Universal Basic Income.
Everyone should have access to adequate nutrition no matter their circumstance. To threaten to starve people, as you suggest, is an UnAmerican value, and should be called out everywhere.
5
@ann, Tell it to the Walton family. Or the fast food restaurant chain owners and others who pay a pittance.
3
@ann We need a democratic socialist form of government that takes care of ALL its citizens. Why the "Christians" are not forwarding this message just proves to me how hollow they are, stuck on abortion (which, by the way, alleviates tax payers from subsidizing pregnancies and unwanted children).
2
The US is a strange place. There's money to wage prolonged wars in faraway places where we have no right to be yet there's no help for immigrants who want to be here and make a better life for themselves.
9
@wihiker Firstly, there's no money for the wars either. We're running a trillion dollar deficit each year. Secondly, "making a better life for themselves" does not mean at our expense.
12
@wihiker Not my job to pay for your life. That is your job. If you care about these people stop demanding that I pay and voluntarily open your wallet to help.
7
A better life for themselves at taxpayer expense.
8
“As Politico has reported, even when the current proposal was just a rumor, immigrants began withdrawing from these programs in droves.”
Has anyone considered the fact that perhaps they withdrew from these programs because they were abusing them and didn’t really need the assistance, but would gladly game the system to get what they could? I dislike Trump as much as anyone, but why should American taxpayers be supporting foreigners who come to our country without the ability to support themselves and their families? Why should we be providers for these people? If they can’t get the assistance they need in their own countries it is up to them to fight for their own political change at home. But this liberal notion (and I am a lifelong Democrat) that “we” need to provide for everyone generally means they think everyone should get everything they want, and someone else - someone “rich”, surely not them! - should pay for it. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Trump is like a broken clock: every once in a while he’s right.
15
@Mike, There should definitely be limitations imposed as to how many children illegals can have on the welfare dime. Right now more means more money, larger sect. 8 subsidy on and on.
6
This country does not need more immigrants.
We need to modernize our economy- automate- not import slave labor to maintain a 19th century economy.
I am tired of the millions of immigrants we take every year. It drives up prices and makes everything more competitive.
The people of the United States did not vote to become a third world country.
14
@WillT26, Endless immigration is the neo-colonization of the US by the 1%.
7
The plan doesn't go far enough. When immigrants come to America some sponsor guarantees they will not go on public assistance. Therefore, no immigrant should be on food stamps, Medicaid, or housing assistance. They should be paying their own way or their sponsor should be supporting them. The problem with this plan is it allows immigrants already on assistance to continue without penalty. We should implement a policy which states immigrants on public assistance have one year to get off assistance or have their Green Cards revoked. Why are poor Americans paying taxes and the government borrowing a trillion dollars a year so that immigrants can sit on the dole. Working Americans are living in basements or on their parents couches while immigrants have food, apartments, and health care paid by the government. Why does the Editorial Board hold America's working poor and the solvency of the United States government in such low regard.
13
To the editorial board:
Do you believe that the cost of education or medical insurance is in no way impacted by these public charges.
What do you think the biggest cost of local taxes is for? It's for schools and teachers. On average that is $10,000 a year per student. You mention 8 million children. That times 10,000 a year comes to almost a trillion dollars a year.
Clearly if they can't afford food they aren't paying for medical insurance also. Want to figure out what that costs?
50% of all babies born are paid for with welfare.
It amazes me how generous our liberal elites are with taxpayer money. I'm a senior citizen still having to work. Not of the elite white privileged class that being white i am lumped into.
When I ask myself why i must continue to work, I can't help but attribute it in a meaningful way to the numbers of poor but very fruitful immigrants.
Stop claiming climate change is is causing all our problems when the real issue is population explosions which drives these immigrants over here.
So i ask, are you looking for solutions or just virtue signalling?
17
@Ben Ross. Really 50% of all babies are on welfare? I read someplace that most of those welfare babies are white and live in Red states. What does this have to do with tricking legal immigrants into not signing up for food stamps?
1
Petulance, meanness, and cruelty know no bounds within this administration and the people and elected officials who support it.
4
We don’t need poor people coming here and immediately going on public assistance into which they have paid nothing.
15
During the 90s the gingrich led republican congress denied immigrants and green card holders food stamps though green card holders paid taxes like everybody else. The latest is an attempt to make america white again, suppress and deny voting rights, and to make america white again. In the 1920s and upto 1965 thereafter america was only for whites. In 2007, during the immigration debate jeff sessions and other republicans made anti- immigrant debates. Trump is a white racist and the GOP has been anti-immigrant and xenophobic since the 1980s. Even foreign born citizens and green card holders do not get the seriousness, not even foreign born US citizens and many green card holders. This appaling development, like japanese internment and asian excludion of the past, would not be possible if it were not for hard core trump and gop supporters, and the 60 percent, democrats and independants not caring about the issue. Only 35 percent of youth and 50 percent of blacks and women vote.
2
Well before Trump was elected, I did what many threatened to do---I looked into Canadian immigration. The short version was that I was too old, did not have enough money, and would be a burden on their healthcare system. I was cool with that---it was a long shot anyway.
I wish the USA had similar immigration policies. Trump is right on this one and with China. Not much else. Still, glad I ended up staying in America. Not that I had a real shot to do anything else.
46
@Concernicus You looked into Canadian immigration law, but do you know what US immigration laws are? Do you actually think a 65 year old with no means of supporting himself or herself (or do not have family capable of supporting them) can immigrate to the US just with a snap of the finger. (And since even under Obamacare US does not exactly have free healthcare, what do we care if somebody is sick?)
Seriously, people have some absurd ideas about how US immigration law works. Don't just believe some nonsense somebody posts on Facebook. Immigration lawyers or their professional organizations will often post FAQs on their web sites. Go to some credible source like that.
2
@Concernicus I feel real bad that American corporations were deported to China and Sam Wall decided to help them out and stock the shelves with Chinese goods. Bottom line?
Costco to Raise Starting Wage to $14 an Hour - WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/articles/costco-to-raise-starting-wage-to-14-an-hour...
May 31, 2018 - Costco Wholesale Corp. said Thursday it would raise its minimum wage and boost pay for 130000 U.S. store staff, intensifying the battle for ...
"Currently, Walmart's starting wage is $9 until workers complete a training program. Then, they receive $10."
"HEALTH CARE. Full-time and part-time benefit-eligible Costco employees are offered generous health care coverage with low bi-weekly payroll contributions. Healthcare coverage includes medical, vision, prescription drug, hearing aid and behavioral health benefits."
Medicaid pays for part time Walmart people.
I shop at Costco. Where do you shop?
3
First, that the rule applies to Medicaid is reprehensible. Immigrants who are here legally but do not make enough to pay for healthcare and would otherwise obtain Medicaid will end up in emergency rooms at taxpayers expense - which need I point out is significantly higher than the cost of Medicaid. For an immigrant to prove that they will make enough to pay for private healthcare is ridiculous, especially in that many native born can't afford it!
As far as self-sufficiency goes, immigrants tend to work more than native born, and typically for less money. The US is an expensive place to live and I doubt that most native born would do many of the jobs that immigrants do. Most of our parents, grand-parents and great grand-parents were immigrants, so when I see comments about self-sufficiency it really irks me. In this administration, with these rules, our ancestors would likely have been denied entry.
2
@RichardL
Most AMERICANS cannot afford health care! If they receive it via employment, it is because their wages are reduced to compensate. FYI: ER visits INCREASED after 2010's ACA/Obamacare that did not one thing to hold down medicals costs, country club doctor salaries, fraud and waste - while insurance tripled for many not on government medical welfare or getting their private insurance subsidized by those who cannot afford policies and medical care for their families.
9
@RichardL. WRONG! If your ancestors arrived after the 1960s maybe. When most of our our ancestors arrived if they did not work, they starved to death. If they were likely to become public charges or were sick in any discernible wat, they were put right back on the boat. They WERE denied entry.
2
The USA has a love hate relationship with immigration, whether legal or illegal. Conversely, while some Americans love how immigrants provide cheap exploitable labour, they're also somewhat hostile toward other consequences of this. America, like Canada, has come to a bilingual and multicultural reality by virtue of immigration; however, while Canada accepts multiculturalism as a product of modernity, and embraces it as official policy along with bilingualism, America views both as unintended consequences of immigration.
As this editorial noted, the actions of Trump's administration concerning this issue are motivated by short term political considerations. They are, furthermore, indicative of an administration bereft of any coherent long term plan, as noted by other replies here. Then again, what can one expect from an administration that has remained in campaign mode since being elected, and has displayed a strong aversion toward governance itself.
3
The social change of America that you refer to is a big part of why Trump got elected.
1
@Bo
Yep, it goes a long way in explaining why Trump was elected 2 years ago, but it also disclosed something else: that conservatism has morphed into angry populism, having failed to address problems arising from globalization. As I wrote earlier this morning, America has largely brought the difficulties accompanying immigration---especially illegal---upon itself.
@Arcticwolf. You are a typical Anglo. You think that Canada was not bilingual before modern immigration? What about Quebec?
In states like Oregon, the contractors enrolling Medicaid recipients have long enrolled undocumented immigrants...because they receive a $340 a month stipend for each patient. They are treated like cash cows, denied even needed medical care when it becomes costly. They are stopped from appealing denials of service by being asked for their immigration status or Social Security number. Oregon routinely engages in patient profiling and medical redlining based on disability, age, sex (women of child bearing age), and race-language. This is the subject of numerous suits and whistleblower complaints, along with the sale of employee and their family medical records to employers and credit agencies. Someone needs to step up, because Oregon is not likely the only corrupt state doing this. Children denied needed surgery, eye glasses, prescription drugs, parents inexplicably being laid off when their spouse is diagnosed with cancer...
1
I would point out that the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, Stephen Goss, states, “We estimate that earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally."
If unauthorized immigrants are paying their taxes - and have the tax returns to prove it – any policy that denies them services as a result is taxation-without-representation.
4
@Wilson1ny
A different story is told by other government agencies. Moreover, most of the costs of immigrants, legal and illegal, are borne by taxpayers in CITIES and STATES, not the federal govt. Estimates are that immigrants cost $80 billion to local municipalities and states - and that's after deducting what immigrants pay into the system.
7
That's policy argument that you could well direct to Congress. But for the moment, the law is what it is, and the administration's determination on this is sanctioned by existing legislation.
2
@Margo – there is a drain - and your $80-million dollar figure is arguably correct - but its not after deductions - that part isn't correct -
American Action Forum research, which found that removing undocumented immigrants would reduce GDP by $380 billion to $620 billion and create shortages of at least 4 million workers.
1
Here is some facts, when you decide to emigrate to Canada, New Zealand, Australia, as a Permanent Resident, you are supposed to show at the "interview" $5000 per person or $10000 per family, to indicate you will support yourself. Also these countries have strict medical before deciding your eligibility. Canada denies new Permanent Resident Health Cards till 90 days in the Province.
In the US, a GC applicant can be a either work sponsored or family ties. Asking a family ties candidate, how fiscally solid their sponsorship is, is not a bad idea.
17
This policy change is not only mean-spirited, but may be deadly.
My Armenian immigrant grandparents' second child, a daughter named Rose, died from dehydration caused by diarrhea in the 30's because they did not have the money for a proper doctor.
Families will forgo applying for services (this has already begun) that they are entitled to rather than risk being denied a green card or perhaps deported. The services include medical care, food, and housing. Already burdened public schools will be left to deal with the effects and families, especially children, will suffer.
2
Unless Americans want the kind of financial upheaval that exists in Venezuela and Africa and India today ,which incidentally we have in some major cities ,drastic measures must be taken. On the larger picture ,globalism and socialism has played out like a massive storm of destruction for many modern societies. Certain political powers in America desire open borders and no restrictions on how much the US taxpayer will contribute to the influx of tens of millions of humans from every destitute corner of the earth.We are over run now and no regulations have been implemented for the last some forty odd years. Immigration is not sustainable in this century any longer for the US citizen and taxpayer.
19
"Certain political powers desire open borders". That's absolutely not true. Name one.
3
It might be good to look at the actual country at least once in a while, as none of this stuff is even close to true.
1
@Makh. When you advocate the bypassing of immigration laws, not enforcing the borders, repeated amnesties, encourage illegal immigration, abolishing ICE and decreased deportation, etc all of which the left and the democrats have supported, you are in essence for "open borders". You don't have to state it explicitly.
1
Without immigration, legal or otherwise, the USA would already be on a downward arc of poulation decline. Not as bad as Canada would be, which has a much higher proportion of immigrants than the USA, but real enough. Ironically, as the Baby Boomers retire from the workforce, the need for immigration increases. Yet it's the Baby Boomer generation that disproportionately supports Trump.
5
Canada requires proof of employable skills and financial responsibility in order to immigrate.
5
This is just one more front on the Republican Party's war on immigrants. A war that is part of a larger strategy to dismantle the social safety net and turn groups that don't fit its ideologically and culturally pure image of what America should be into second-class citizens.
At least now, we can dispense with the fiction that its policy of hounding immigrants has anything to do with "law and order." Republicans are working to find a way to strip documented or undocumented asylum seekers, migrants, immigrants, holders of green cards, etc., of due process, rights, and services that the rest of Americans have access to.
The Republican Party is preying on the most vulnerable population in the US with the least power to defend itself as the first step in imposing its social agenda on America, and make no mistake - when it is done with immigrants, it will turn on the rest of America - non-whites, non-Christians, women, the poor, etc., hoping to homogenize America in its image - a reactionary fantasy of white, conservative Christian, corporate America profiting from having a "small" government that only interferes with others' rights when they don't conform to the imagined purity of their own beliefs.
Is this the vision for the future that Americans want?
To vote or not to vote is to decide.
What is it to be, America?
5
• On Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security proposed a rule that would enable it to deny green cards and visas to immigrants here legally who have used public health and nutrition assistance, including Medicaid and food stamps.
A dumb question: How are immigrants supposed to get out of poverty and dependence if they aren't allowed a green card to work?
Just asking....
116
@Robert Coane. Another "dumb question". Why have we made it public policy to import poverty, especially over the last 40 years, when we have so much here now? Just asking...
3
@Robert Coane Legal immigrants are allowed to work. Illegal immigrants are NOT allowed to work or to be in the country. H1B visas do not allow the spouse to work (there have been changes in this - Obama allowed spouses to work, Trump will not allow spouses to work)
@Robert Coane
To the commenter who describes himself as “Finally Full Canadian”:
You probably know that Canada chooses most of its immigrants by a merit system. Points are awarded to those who have the education and skills to contribute something special to the Canadian economy, to those who are fluent in English and/or French, and to those who could easily assimilate. Having a relative already living in Canada is but one small consideration. The result is that most new Canadian immigrants already have a good-paying job waiting fo them, or they find one as soon as they arrive. This allows them to immediately start paying hefty taxes.
U.S. law is not intended to admit immigrants who would be dependent on welfare and all sorts of government subsidies. It uses a family-based system, with the expectation that the family who sponsors a new immigrant will be financially responsible for the immigrant. The problem is that many sponsors do not have the financial means to support their immigrant relatives. And, since the system does not screen immigrants for education, English fluency, or a way to support themselves in our modern economy, we end up with many immigrants who are largely dependent on taxpayers to support them for the indefinite long-term ... which often means for the rest of their lives.
P.S. I think you are confused about you can work in the U.S. Nearly all legal immigrants are allowed to work here.
8
American citizens get our tax dollars first!,, we are not uncle sugar
17
So we find that at the heart of Trump’s and Republican voter’s fears are money. They believe that their good lives and security are based upon money. They will do everything that they can to retain it for themselves and withhold that which public institutions spend on others from spending it on strangers. I guess they are right. Society is not built on trust and sharing for them, but upon monetary transactions. The great wealth generating engine that once made the U.S. so powerful, wealthy, and able to promote a Pax Americana is defunct for these voters. Now we are a shrinking country, soon to be replaced by China and Russia. We need to save every dollar because soon there won’t be many more wealth being created to back up issuing more currency. The old miserly rich guy scenario.
2
Exactly right. And you are free to give your money to whomever you chose. I will keep mine for my family.
8
When my parents immigrated here legally they had to have sponsors willing to support them if they could not support themselves. Mom and Dad arrived in the US just after lunch on a Friday. Dad had a job by 3 in the afternoon and started work on the following Monday. Their sponsors never had to help. Dad worked steadily and supported our little family and paid taxes and employed others who also paid taxes until a few months before he died of cancer 35 years later.
Part of the problem, it is fair to point out, is that too many if not most US jobs no longer pay a living wage. That is another thing that needs to be fixed, besides our broken immigration system. It damages citizens just as much as immigrants. In the meantime, our Congress does nothing.
12
Too bad Germany didn't want wretched refuse and sent the Trump family to our teeming shore, a family legacy passed on to his grandson who stiffed small business suppliers, fleeced grandma and grandpa of their retirement during his bankruptcies, and who probably laundered millions for Russian oligarchs. Oh the things that could have and should have been.
3
So much for "Give us your tired, your poor..."
93
@Anne-Marie Hislop. Thankfully, cheesy, out of date poems are not public policy or law.
24
@Anne-Marie Hislop,
We are a democratic-republic. Not a poemocracy.
We have a Constitution and laws. We have democratic processes for determining policy.
Poems do not dictate policy.
You take the tired and poor. Give your time and money to help these people.
5
@Al so Emma Lazarus' poem on the Statue of Liberty is cheesy and out of date? Maybe we should just send the Statue of Liberty back to France.
1
Until you are willing to work in the fields, gut fish, or wash dishes for a living you have nothing to say on this subject. The low wage, heavy labor jobs that these immigrants have to take do not come close to supporting an individual, much less a family. I know a number of American citizens receiving assistance while working one and sometimes two jobs because the pay is so low.
5
Given that the NY Times has asserted immigrants are only a blessing to the country I don't understand how they are receiving or need to receive any government assistance. How many times have we heard they are valedictorians etc. Those assertions are fake news. Most immigrants are not as productive or as law-abiding as natural born U.S. citizens.
Obviously, the Left are liars as demonstrated by the numbers of people getting money off of my tax dollars. Let the Left donate from their own paychecks (NOT OURS) if they believe financial assistance is needed.
12
This move by the Trump administration has nothing to do with watching over public funds and everything to do with "Making America White Again."
If Trump had any concerns over the country's finances, we wouldn't be enduring an increasing deficit and 12T in debt and growing due to an unneeded tax cut for the wealthy. If Trump was so concerned about public finances, we would't be contemplating a needless military parade or Trump weekly golf trips that is costing US taxpayers millions.
Trump is trying to punish illegal immigrants for something he does all of the time - NOT PAY TAXES.
If Trump is going to scrutinize illegal and legal immigrants on taxes and public benefits, lets start with Trump's tax returns!
7
I do not think either the New York Times or some of the commentators on this message board understand what the real issues are. There is a large illegal immigrant population present in this country. They provide unfair competition to low wage Americans because they are working under the table, not paying any taxes, they or their employer is not paying for medicare, medicaid, disability insurance which Americans and their employers are required to pay. Employers in certain industries will always hire an illegal immigrant over an American because they cost less, work harder and complain less. Some of these illegals have children who are US citizens. If they can get Section 8 housing, medicaid, food stamps and free meals for their kids, they end up hurting the system both ways. This also promotes a whole underground economy where work is done off the books for cash, wages are paid in cash and Uncle Sam is stiffed. On the other end of the spectrum, immigrants will often sponsor their old parents. They may be an only child or have no one to look after them in their old country. As these parents get older, the medical bills start piling up. At this point, the children are looking for a way out. sending them back to the old country is often not an option because all boats have been burnt. The option often picked is to pretend these old people have no one to look after them so that they can qualify for medicaid. These loopholes need to be closed.
27
@Rahul So how about holding these employers to account? We have an eVerify system that works and is not enforced. Heaven forbid if a Big Ag business has to pay a living wage.
2
These folks should never have been admitted in the first place. Under what possible rationale does the country benefit by acting as an international welfare magnet? The only people we should ever admit are those who pull their own weight; immigrants, whether legal or otherwise, should not qualify for ANY taxpayer-funded welfare benefits.
We should not be admitting people who will EVER rely upon SNAP, WIC. Medicaid, etc.
We should welcome foreign MD’s, Ph.D.s and other highly educated, skilled people. We should admit not a single day laborer. Put simply, not one poor person who threatens to become a taxpayer burden should be permitted to enter. We have enough native borns filling the sponge role; we don’t need to import foreign sponges.
Apparently, we are admitting almost 400,000 welfare cases every year. We need comprehensive immigration reform to immediate end that. We shouldn’t be admitting “vulnerable populations”.
Again, this is not hard. Send every single illegal home. Adopt a policy akin to Canada’s which admits people who benefit the country, and excludes those who will be a burden.
23
Ever realized that those foreign MDs, PhDs that you mention are immigrants too? What if they have been here for 15 years (paying taxes) then lose their job? Should we kick them out immediately?
1
So, legal immigrants (like illegal one) could be kick-out of the country by to be denied green cards and visas for using legally public health (Medicaid) and nutrition assistance (food stamp). Are we missing something? Oh wait! Remember the tax cuts for corporations, rich people and the 1%? Well, as the conservatives said so well nothing is free. And somebody as to pay for those tax cuts. So in this case legal immigrants could pay.
3
@Wilbray Thiffault That's not what it said.
3
Sauce for the goose, sause for the gander.
Legal immigration losing green card. American citizen using same program take away their citizenship.
Will American say "we had enough."
1
Stranger in my own land
how did it happen that I became a stranger in my own country, in my own neighborhood. When I stand in line at the supermarket I have nobody I can talk too. The person in front of me is a women from Ecuador, the man behind me is Muslim, the women if front of me can't speak English and the man behind me could care less about me or anybody that looks like me. Nobody talks on that line, they just stand there and wait, one wonders what they are thinking about each other, in the countries they came from everybody looked like them, here everything is different, and they don't seem to like it, the customs and the looks of others who don't believe what they believe and worship different gods.
I can't communicate with them other than a nod or smile, few smile back, they are here now, here in America, and they feel they own nothing to me or anybody else, they don't comprehend that its the taxes of me and millions more like me that pay for all the free stuff, nobody ever taught them that, its a lesson they should have learned, maybe if they would have learned that lesson, then they would show some sort of gratitude.
13
Are legal immigrants being told which programs that will get them deported? I don't think they are. Its really not fair to say, you know those programs that you have been using legally, because you used them we are going to deport you. That drives people into the shadows. If I spent most of my life here and grew up on assistance because of my parents, why should I be deported. My wife is an legal immigrant. We are scared to death of any form of public assistance. Even the healthcare marketplace. I should not worry that it may get my wife deported.
2
Sounds like another "love child" of Stephen Miller and Kirstjen Nielsen. This makes you realize that abortion has a point after all.
2
So are the left and the nyts saying that flooding the country with poor, unskilled, uneducated people could possibly not be the path to economic prosperity? Could have knocked me over with a feather. theres a reason California, which boasts about its economy and its gigantic immigrant population has 12% of the countries population and 35% of its welfare recipients and the taxes to prove it. The citizen children of immigrants, legal and illegal, are eligible for all citizen benefits. The left and the times are as dishonest about immigration as the right is about climate change and it's going to keep hurting them until they sit down for an honest non-emotion based discussion of this issue.
21
color is very important in immigration matters.
Green.
We can identify labor that we need and admit those people. But why should I pay Medicaid so your parents can come? I am not talking about refugees. I am talking about the dozens of people admitted to my hospital each week who are here “visiting” for years without any financial contribution.
If you wonder why we got trump, it’s because of this fairy-land financial thinking that we can and should hand out benefits to any and all.
17
Not just that we can and should, but that doing so is somehow a "moral imperative."
4
The 2018 Tax Reform Bill, with the snap of the Republican fingers, will raise the U.S. deficit to 1 Trillion Dollars by 2020. We urgently need 100 million more immigrants paying an average of $10,000 in annual taxes to stop the financial bleeding. And this not a political statement, it is a mathematical fact.
1
@M Martínez. Please do the math on the effect of an extra 100 million Americans producing 16tons of co2/capita/yr on global warming. the Ponzi scheme of ever more people in a finite land mass has to end. It's a mathematical fact.
3
Unless the tax cut stimulates the economy enough to reduce the deficit through increased tax revenues. We'll see.
Bobo I wouldn't hold your breath.
Honestly I would rather support all the immigrants and provide healthcare for all Americans rather than pay for 20 years of wars that have only caused more and more immigration. These wars are creating terror and immigrants and more war.
195
@Mark. False equivalence. It is not either or.
4
@Al I stated that I would rather have seen the money that was wasted on war go to solve these problems. I did not say that we could do only one. I fully believe we have the money to do all of these things. If 'We the people' had the lobbying power of some of these special interest groups things could change.
1
@Mark. Fair enough. Otoh, the biggest driver of immigration and social/environmental upheaval at this point in history is not u.s. wars, but climate change and over population. None of these are improved by moving more people west or giving welfare to poor immigrants. In fact a case can be made that both are made worse.
1
It seems to me that the Trump Administration may be a bit shortsighted and missing the big picture here. According to the CDC, the birth rate in the United States fell to a 30-year low in 2017. The US economy is at full employment. Baby boomers are retiring in droves, meaning they are not contributing to the economy, but are tapping Social Security and costly health care and living longer than previous generations. I hope that that administration is not dissuading legal immigrants who can contribute to the economy.
4
@Chris
Do you believe that drawing on government aid programs is positively contributing to the economy?
If so, please post your routing numbers so that all of us can contribute to your personal economy. :)
5
@Chris
Most Boomers are still working and will till they drop dead from exhaustion.
The group retiring are the generally well off Silent Generation, a/k/a The Lucky Few. They are the smallest generation ever in the U.S. and reaped the most benefits - because the immigration spigot was turned from 1930-1965. We need to do that again to give Gen Z a break.
4
To take a parochial point of view, this proposed policy will be a long-term disaster for New York City and its surrounding region. More that most, we have been the nexus of immigration throughout our 400-year history. Immigrants arrive because they have compelling motivation to leave their places of origin. They and, perhaps even more important, their children and grandchildren, tend to be strivers.
If one includes in-migration from other parts of the United States, one sees how arrivals of "immigrants" over the centuries has bolsters the dynamism of the city. First, the arrivals from the failing agricultural regions of northwest Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; then the refugees from New England in the wake of the failed small ports blockaded by the British Navy during the American Revolution and their subsequent exclusion afterwards from commerce with the British West Indies; then the refugees from the ravages of the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars; then the Irish from starvation; then the Jews from eastern Europe fleeing the rabid anti-Semitism in the wake of the collapse of feudal agricultural; then the Italians in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries fleeing another collapsing traditional economy; the list goes on.
There is convincing evidence that the near collapse of NYC in the 1960's and 70's is due to the cutting off of new immigration in the 1920's. New Yorkers, be warned: constant renewal requires new peoples.
3
@John Lee Kapner
So your saying that NYC's survival depends on taxpayers from the entire country sending aid to NYC residents and NYC government.
4
A good argument, but it doesn't address whether immigration can or should be regulated in a particular way.
From a public health standpoint, this makes no sense. It is for everyone's protection that everyone present in the U.S. should be eligible for vaccinations and for treatment of TB and STDs, no matter their financial ability to pay.
From a personal standpoint, had these rules been in effect, my family would not have been able to come to the U.S. in the early 60s. The country would have lost a U.S. air force officer, a diplomat, a physician, a dental surgeon, and a successful business person. (siblings and self), not to mention our children who include physicians, Air Force officer, diplomats, IT specialists. A little help for newly arriving immigrant can reap vast rewards for everyone.
6
That is a sound policy argument which could well be presented to the legislative and executive branch. But for the present, that is not the law.
1
I am a physician in a community health center in NYC where I see Americans and legal as well as illegal immigrants. I find it very unfair that my poor elderly patients on Medicare who have worked and paid taxes their entire life can't afford their medications that are free for immigrants on Medicaid. Many of the immigrants on Medicaid (especially from the Dominican Republic) fly back and forth and have homes in the DR. Many people also bring in their elderly relatives which cost the taxpayer a lot in medical care. Why do we treat others better than our own citizens?
60
@allright
I'm on Medicare. Why aren't our own citizens being treated properly? That's the question, not denying aid to the needy.
2
I share your feelings and experience. But the liberal response will be just give Medicare recipients “free drugs” and have everyone else pay with all the money that grows on trees.
4
@Jake NewsWhy Jake? Because there is a limited amount of money, and you cannot ask the wealthier to keep paying more more more.
1
I know this is purely anecdotal personal experience, but I think it highlights the benefit of public assistance. We moved to the US at the time of the fall of the Soviet Union. Having come from a country where the value of the ruble was very low, saving a years salary gave our family of 4 exactly 1000 to make a life in the US. As a child growing up in Kentucky I had free lunch, we lived with section 8 housing and food stamps. My dad who had a PhD in mathematics picked tobacco and washed dishes to just literally survive. Using the albeit small support from the government both my parents went back to school, becoming a physician and a CPA. Since then they have countless times over given back in taxes what they received in those first years here. I know not everyone will be able to accomplish what they did, but they could have never done it without assistance.
24
@Sasha and here’s my anecdotal experience. Go to any grocery store in Brighton Beach and watch food stamps come out almost universally to pay from arms full of jewelry and only the newest IPhones.
1
For those commenters who inveigh against illegal immigrants: Please note that this editorial is about policies affecting legal immigrants. For those who opine that we should not tolerate immigrants unwilling to work: Please consider that we are talking about forms of assistance (food stamps and Medicaid - not cash "welfare") largely used by working families. And for those who respond that we should only permit the educated and highly skilled to come to our country: Please check out the U. S. Department of Labor's projections for occupations with the most job growth to 2026: https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/occupations-most-job-growth.htm
You will see that the majority of occupations listed are unattractive, low wage, and often short-term jobs like stock clerks, construction laborers, groundskeeping workers, fast food workers, cleaners, and - the two with the highest projected need - personal care aides in nursing homes and home health aides (38.6% and 47.3% projected growth respectively). With the low unemployment rates that the administration boasts of, there will be plenty of jobs for both native-born and immigrant workers, but both groups will need some extra help from time to time (food stamps or medicaid - not cash "welfare") to make ends meet. After all, how much more are most of us going to be able to afford to entice the Ph.D. from Norway or the law school graduate next door to push our wheelchairs and change our Depends?
11
@szinar That's for our elected representatives to decide. Existing legislation delegates to the executive branch the authority to regulate categories of immigration. Your views may differ, but that's what the law is.
2
@Bobo
I understand that the government has this authority. My argument is that the executive branch's plan to withdraw these forms of assistance from LEGAL immigrants who are very likely WORKING at ESSENTIAL but low-paying jobs is misguided. As a voter, I intend to support candidates for elective office who back policies that I believe are sensible and compassionate.
1
This whole debate belongs in our Congress where we can decide what kind of immigration policy we want to persue rather than relying on anecdotal stories and quite biased commentators. We have a legislature to help us make these decisions so let’s use it. We should demand that our representatives do this. One wonders if perhaps we prefer to be victims and enjoy complaining more than moving towards a solution.
4
@Theodore
You may not have noticed but our legislature is nonfunctional at the moment. They don't seem to be too worried about doing what we demand of them. Our best recourse is to VOTE in November.
8
@ExPatMX. Vote GOP, MAGA
Immigrants should be self-sufficient. The "public charge" rule is entirely reasonable. I can't think of one good argument for allowing groups of people (leaving aside refugees and asylum seekers) into the country so they can live off public assistance.
183
@Frunobulax There's a very good reason, but it only inures to the benefits of Democrats.
@Frunobulax Perhaps you have not considered the fact that no one ever chooses to become sick or impoverished.
@Frunobulax Except immigrants, as opposed to our president, pay taxes far beyond their earnings. Immigrants, as has been pointed out by actuaries, contribute large amounts to social security even though they likely will never receive social security benefits. Here is an idea, appoint a commission with suitable privacy guarantees, to permit immigrants who paid into Social Security to withdraw their contributions and put them into a trust fund to pay out SNAP and Medicaid to themselves and other immigrants. The idiocy behind this regulation is clear, as study after study has shown, the second generation, most American citizens not only pay their way, but contribute far more than the temporary nickel dime benefits they had in a time of need. The prime point is, this is why there is an America.
The good news...the trumpite worms are turning. The steel workers who fell for the demogogue's speil...2 unions...are seeing NO BENEFIT from the oligarchic tax cuts and the steel tariffs are planning on striking. If the next chapter is using the fascistic right wing courts to ban legitimate labour union activity there exists the ingredients for social uprising as seen through history. Sooner or later the proletariat will see through trump's lies.
6
cultivating xenophobia. Umm not sure that’s correct. As a tax payer I should have a voice (yes I vote) and I think that’s not an unreasonable request. We are not the worlds mother. If you come here illegally then that’s breaking our laws you should be deported no matter how long it takes. If we welcome you then you should be able to care for yourself. Let me break it down to simple terms ;It’s like going to your neighbors place uninvited and sitting down for dinner. Sure some might feel sorry for you ,welcome and feed you but for how long?
48
@J Clark
America sure acts like the worlds mother by bullying and intimidating others that do not follow its path. Look at history, its America butting into almost everything to then reap the benefits in times of chaos and destruction.
2
One day we are going to look back at this administration and shame them on the cruel ways in which they fell, just as we did in many past actions. But I will say this: Shame on you Trump, and shame on all of you who are involved in this cruel scheme.
10
The editorial board has finally gone far enough in it's pro-immigration stance that even consistent liberals like myself find their position unsupportable. if you want to lose the midterms and the next presidential election, keep it up. Of all possible current issues, this is the one where Democrats are farthest from the mainstream and most vulnerable. Middle America thinks that you care more about immigrants than about them. Are you totally tone deaf
50
@ron you ask the wrong question. Why are we reducing our immigration from only certain countries? What is the point of punishing those that are here, working and raising future Americans.
1
Ron has a point. The American people are allowed some choice in what immigration policies their country will follow.
1
Many commenters pay lip service to individual liberty, but regarding immigrants' freedom of choice, many want to violate it to one degree or another. That's hypocrisy!
4
@Alexander S The immigrant, legal or otherwise doesn't have the freedom of choice to live anywhere he likes. He must ask permission.
The US gives permission to people to live here on the order of between 700,000 and 1,000,000 people each year, more than any other nation. It's not cruel to ask that the people who enter be self-supporting.
But even if it were cruel or short sighted or unhealthy or nativist it is still something that is up the citizens of the US to decide, not would be residents. There is no concept of freedom of choice which is consonant with people moving into a nation without permission or moving into a nation with permission, but demanding that others support them.
7
Here we go again, NYT can advocate for poor illegal immigrants, especially from Latin America, I do not see very much advocacy for the poor people of this country that are essentially denied health care because the Medicaid system is so over burdened with the families of illegal immigrants that the poor and near poor in any place except the illegal immigrant states of California and New York, that have their Congressional districts packed with illegal immigrants and can therefore get more assistance, are depleting poorer states that are not packed with illegal immigrants out of Medicaid dollars.
Americans are being financially drained by the follies of the frivolous upper middle class elites that essentially dislike ordinary Americans; perhaps Americans are not exotic enough or maybe they can not teach the elite children Spanish or Chinese or maybe some middle eastern language, but Americans have to pay for all the social services those people illegally consume.
NYT, focus your elite readers on the travails of the poor citizens of this country who die of cancer or heart disease because they can not afford to see a doctor.
Charity begins with the poor citizens of this country.
50
@JRS
It is the Republicans who deny medicaid to hard-working Americans.
Republican Attorneys General brought the lawsuit that Republicans on the Supreme Court supported to allow Republican Governors and Republican legislators to deny the ACA Medicaid expansion.
The Times, and Democrats, talk about that all the time.
Democrats have been pushing for universal health coverage since the days of Harry Truman. The only disagreement among Democrats is how to get it done over Republican obstruction
The Republicans have been obstructing taking care of people; they fought against Medicare and are trying to privatize and sink it to this day, are undermining protections for pre-existing conditions under the ACA
Where do we get the $$ to help ALL among us? Well, the money spent on the yacht that a Republican congressman bought right after voting for the Republican tax cut (link below) would be a good first step--all of their yachts and other frivolous expenses could add up to a lot of money for more important expenses
http://floridapolitics.com/archives/268587-vern-buchanan-bought-yacht
18
@JRS I am one of the New Yorkers and happen to be a naturalized citizen. Illegal immigrants have only one medical option, emergency care in hospitals. 70% of illegal immigrants have been here for 10 years. The only way they could stay here is by working, paying taxes even though they are not citizens. They turn into noncitizen, working class who send their children to the army, fight our wars knowing they can be deported at any time. Do our poor live with that type of fear. It is not as if this country does not have land for resettlement, jobs or even resources to keep them (like our forefathers) headed towards eventual citizenship). When we arrived we did not have coverage, even when my sister was born.
4
@JRS
Well, I believe that in past editorials, the NYT has supported Medicaid expansion that would help those folks you talk about. Sadly, Alabama's past and current governor have refused to accept Medicaid expansion that would help one of the poorer states.
2
In all the countries I know about, including Spain, Portugal, Italy, Canada, Mexico and France, you are required to submit proof of financial responsibility before you are allowed to immigrate.
43
@Bobo Right, because since 1776 we staked our future on immigration. Has not been so bad so far? Or better yet ask those of your family born abroad, what options they had?
2
@Mike
The U.S. has been hotly debating and RESTRICTING immigration since the 1790s. Read a history book.
1
I wonder if the administration would change the rule if the immigrants were from Norway?
3
@Renee Hiltz The rule change is aimed at all immigrants not some. And BTW, Canada has long used skills and ability to contribute to the economy as a basis for granting visas and encouraging legal immigration. Why is it a problem if the US does the same?
23
@Renee Hiltz. If it makes you feel any better many of us think we don't need any more people no matter where they are from.
2
and exactly what is wrong in making sure that immigrants are not a burden on society? If they are, send them packing!
42
@liberty
If it's all about supposedly being a "burden to society" I'm sure their are plenty of people who support the President who fit that bill. Why can't we just strip them of their citizenship and deport them?
1
@Brad Blumenstock In other words, we have enough and don't need any more, right?
1
Handmaid's Tale in the making. Wake up people!
2
This law targets “poor” folks but there are thousands of homegrown Americans living in nice houses,drive expensive cars but are on Medicaid,use WIC cards and Bridgecards.I should know because there are a few in my neighborhood!.Lets target them first!!
12
Judging from these comments NYT readers, outliers among the most liberal people in the country, do not support the Times's position on immigration. Please, Times, if even THIS group disagrees with you, won't you at least CONSIDER the possibility you might be wrong?
42
If we didn't know better, we might suspect Trump's policy arises from his vile racism. Yet many commenters pay lip service to freedom, but when it comes to an immigrant's freedom of choice, they would violate it to some degree. That's hypocrisy!!
6
Nationalists will never welcome immigrants because their compassion ends at the border. Globalists will as they are citizens of the world.
2
How many Americans do you think support this "citizens of the world" concept?
7
@Bobo. Obama did and that's part of the reason we ended up with trump.
1
This administration is trying to copy other Western nations where “ documented” immigrants, both permanent and temporary, are self-supporting with a trade or profession it appears. If some hit a tough spot, temporary welfare assistance is acceptable, but not if they are long term deadbeats. We have way to many of them here now who are natural born losers, but with masters degree equivalents in welfare manipulation and evasion techniques!
27
I work in healthcare in NYC and am continually astonished by the numbers of new immigrants I see on Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), Section 8, and other government funded welfare. New immigrants should be self sufficient and not be able to jump on the government dole. Countries with points based immigration systems won’t allow someone in who is immediately going to go on government assistance which is completely rational. New immigrants should benefit the American people first and foremost and not be a drain on taxpayers.
63
One has to wonder if those who seek to deny health insurance to immigrants, whether legal or illegal, know anything about modern medicine. It seems that they are still back two centuries ago when no one knew how infections spread.
If that immigrant is working in the kitchen of a restaurant in which you eat and has an untreated infection, you may get it from them. Being immigrants doesn't affect the transmission of infections.
10
@Steve, Exactly why I avoid certain restaurants. Their kitchen sanitary standards are sub par as well.
3
@Steve in that case we ought to halt illegal immigration from Latin America, where vaccination can be rare and hygiene standards are different. We might then avoid the regular e. coli outbreaks we have in agricultural products.
3
Here is some fodder for thought. I have been legally present in the United States for 15 years. Of which I have paid federal and state income taxes, for 15 years. I became a permanent resident two years ago after becoming qualified for the EB-1 visa. During this time, I have made the U.S. my home and have contributed to the advancement of this nation in numerous ways. Still, I am considered a second class resident. I can not vote. I will not be able to vote for at least 4 more years assuming my citizenship application will be approved within a year. So by the time I become eligible to vote, I will have paid my taxes for close to two decades. How is this fair?
On the other hand, people who received green cards by marrying US citizens are eligible to become citizens within 3 years as opposed to 5 years - a requirement that applies to everyone else. How is this fair?
Make no mistake. Denying immigration benefits to people using government welfare etc. is a thinly veiled attempt to discriminate against anyone who is not white and christian. If Trump et al and Nielsen cared about our constitution and the progress of our country, they would not be drowning in scandals only halfway into the presidency. The day of reckoning is coming soon.
13
This idea is likely to give rise to the dangers of more “Typhoid Maria’s” working under the table in food processing and handling businesses. The best preventative would be automatic provision for affordable or free healthcare and fully paid and required sick leave!
4
Didn’t Trump’s base ever hear of the Golden Rule? And how much of a savings is it to deny basic benefits to some legal citizens? Probably less than a few weekend trips by Trump to Mar-a-Lago. Too many people are buying into Trump’s depravity. I’m worried about the future of this country. Vote in November!
7
At a minimum, DHS should make it crystal clear that all families with US citizen children are exempt from this rule. Excluding WIC and CHIP is a good start but 1) immigrants are too frightened to avail of the exclusion, and 2) programs like food stamps are for a whole family, which includes a child. These children were born here, they are citizens of this country, and punishing them for their parents immigration status should be a no-go, or are certain children considered a lesser class of citizen?
4
When I was still in the workforce, in the business world, when looking at an issue there was always a requirement to look at cause and effect and develop an analysis of alternatives.
In the never ending war on brown people it appears there is only one analysis-none. Just shooting from the hip or throwing a vile substance at the wall to see what sticks regardless of the consequences.
No, I am not advocating free-for-all immigration, only that someone with intellect in our government, take the time to perform analysis prior to decision making, that effects immigrants-legal or otherwise.
75
If this administration wants to be so hostile to foreigners, how about showing some consistency and banning mega-wealthy foreign investors from snatching up urban real estate, often via shell companies, and never even setting foot on their properties? No doubt this has pushed many regular rich people into the nicer fringes, many regular middle class people into shoe boxes and many regular poor people into worse. And now, many people will need to make some serious decisions on whether or not they should...eat.
Conflict of interest, Donnie? You can't even be consistent with your own worst inclinations, if exceptions can further line your pockets?
Check out what has happened in New Zealand, where foreign investors have been shut out of the housing market.
9
@jon Yes! Totally agree, foreign money out of our real estate system.
1
Sounds like an excellent proposal on the part of DHS.
Fully support it.
11
@Cazanueva looks like the alarm went out to the resentful white people to defend using sickness to identify illegals and deport them or demand reparations from them. Lovely.
I have an idea: let’s demand reparations from the tobacco industry to cover the costs of those addicted. Maybe Purdue Pharma could be made to pay for the dead and the hospitalized and harm done to families and communities as a consequence of their knowing misrepresentation and aggressive marketing of OxvContin?
Wouldn’t that be fair in the context of revenge?
3
Immigrants who can’t support themselves should not be allowed to come here. American citizens should not have to support immigrants. Americans First.
23
@Olivia
What about American citizens who can't support themselves, shouldn't we just strip them of their citizenship and deport them?
1
@Olivia are you willing to tell this to your ancestors? Where would your family be if they were denied entry? Could we even have a country to debate this if followed Steven Millers ideas.
Why has the left never wanted this debate until now? Why do they continue to use the term undocumented immigrants? The correct term is illegal immigrant. The right word to use is illegal simply because they're illegally in the US. Progressives want to stop others from using the term illegal immigrant, often invoking the idea that no human being is illegal, but that's nonsense. The term is accurate. It's not a semantic discussion. I think, when the left hears illegal, they decided, well, let's just change the word & we'll be done with it. Is there something about illegal immigrant per se that is so dehumanizing that it can't be used in polite discourse for people who are trying to have an honest conversation & aren't trying to spin it?
We need to speak clearly so we define what's at stake. Undocumented seems to imply that some people forgot to fill out the correct paper work when crossing the border. That's not what happened. They entered the US knowing they were breaking the law. They're here in the U.S illegally. That's why it's an issue. Can the left admit that the large number of illegal immigrants in the US, many of whom are relatively unskilled, gives rise to economic competition that harms job & wage prospects for voters who live here? Can they admit that one can have concerns about illegal immigration without being racist? That there's a rational reason for being wary of a lax approach to this problem? If these questions aren't answered we will never solve this crisis.
22
@Bill Brown I guess when you get a parking ticket you should be deemed an illegal driver. The crime of entering into the US without documentation is a misdemeanor. I guess if you trespass on another person's property you become an illegal citizen because trespass is also a misdemeanor.
I do speak clearly but there are certain charged words which give people the wrong idea about what is going on. Charged words lead to an acceptance of taking children from their parents when a family is seeking asylum which is NOT even illegal. It is sick and perverse to take children from their parents but it was palatable because some citizens thought these non-citizens were breaking the law because you blanketed anyone crossing the border with the term illegal.
The punishment should fit the crime and the label of the crime should be accurate. "Illegal" is overly broad and inflammatory. Next time you are caught jaywalking you shouldn't be labeled a criminal.
And to be clear there should be an honest discussion about undocumented workers and jobs and wages and employers and what is and isn't acceptable. But you have to start by getting rid of inaccurate labeling and charged language which clouds the process. It has been shown that many Americans don't want to do the jobs that keep food prices what they are and that migrant workers will - is this right or wrong? The discussion is quite complex and shouldn't be tainted with rhetoric that casts someone as a criminal first.
3
The face of overt public cruelty and inhumanity is the face of Kirstjen Nielsen. The wicked woman who tore small children from their mothers arms and caged them, then whisked them away to far reaches of the country with no paper trail and then deported their parents, has a new plan to ferret them out. Any person who seeks healthcare under Medicaid will be targeted for deportation. One is reminded of Herod: “Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.”
Evangelicals do not care about the immigrants. They are “brown” like Jesus, not white like Trump and themselves. Evangelicals are righteous about thei brand of morality that is roundly condemned by Jesus.
Trump and his supporters in the Cabinet are removed from the realities that they inflict upon immigrants because they are racists to their cores.
7
Can't we send Nielsen to the International Court of Justice in the Hague for crimes against humanity?
6
What if they need public assistance because they are working at Walmart? Why is it OK for companies like Walmart to pay so little that the taxpayers have to supplement their workers when they are citizens, but not if they are immigrants.
12
@Cheryl. It's not alright, but that is a separate issue. Wages are finally starting to move up slightly after being stagnant for decades. Could it be the supply of labor is finally coming into balance with demand, that is the supply of cheap immigrant labor is falling?
7
@Cheryl Not okay for Walmart to pay so little. If we had fewer people, these companies would need to pay more to attract people. Even with all the help wanted signs, we still see no pay increases.
6
@Al how do you know that cheap immigration labor is falling? There are no stats. Maybe, they are being used to elevate citizens to better jobs? Would you do their work? Did not think so. Oh and where would our economy be if they disappear? Would you consume more to make it up.
A war on the poor to balance their thievery on behalf of the wealthy.
8
The half of my white family who came here in 1711 didn't get government housing, food cards, or free health care. In fact, most immigrants didn't receive such resources until very recently in America. As a matter of historical record, there is a plethora of photographic documents of immigrant children in the 1800 and 1900's working in mills, foundries, and industrial centers, sweat shops--girls as young as ten years old working 14 hour days, boys as young as eight delivering newspapers--who didn't receive even the benefit of a free public education, let alone subsidized housing, food, or health care. Talk about systemic and economic disasters. We've come a long way since then, but you would never know it the way some describe the immigrant experience today.
6
Yup, most of the people who will be hurt will be American citizens born in the US to immigrants. If assistance is removed prior to birth complications will increase.
Family values!!
Sounds like an excellent idea.
10
My Grandfather was an immigrant and he taught us all one thing, one cardinal rule-"Never take handouts, never take welfare, always work for what you want, an honest days work for an honest days pay. Many years have gone by and my Grandfather as well as my father are long gone, but while they were alive they lived by that credo, and so have I. I have been working for 30 years, and soon plan retirement. I live in a neighborhood in the Bronx, in which half the population are immigrants, that speak different language and come from all parts of the globe, Muslims from Iraq, east Europeans, Dominicans, etc. When I go shopping in the local supermarket, I pay with cash or debit card, while all of the immigrants pay with an EBT card, sometimes I see the newbies, the ones fresh off the boat, use their EBT card for the first time, can't even speak English, a fellow countrymen usually comes over to help them. I have never seen these immigrants pay in any other way. My Grandfather who worked a back breaking job installing fire escapes on sides of buildings to put bread on the table for his family would cry if he could stand in that supermarket today.
America is changing
25
It is a pogrom plain and simple and Nielsen needs to be removed because she is not doing her job as far as defending our national security as she vacillates from day to day about the Russian invasion of Putin hackers on our democracy, our infrastructure and our U.S. elections.
She really is an evil instrument of Trump and Sessions as far as the children stolen from their mothers at our Southern Border with 500 of them not reunited with their families still because Trump could care less which means Nielsen could care less. It was a heinous act and a crime against humanity which they should answer for in the world court.
Twenty-two of these children still detained are under 5 and this is so incredibly heinous, obscene, unjust. I am ashamed of my country for not getting these babies and children reunited with their families NOW. The only ones working hard at this are independent actors and the ACLU and Judge Sabraw. Other than that everyone has moved on.
Just think of your own baby, toddler, or young child wrenched from your arms and placed into a detainment center, one you have no access to in order to get your child back. This child is going to be traumatized for life and is living without love and in genuine fear and confusion all day every day since taken away.
6
The constant quoting by open borders fanatics of the poem in the Statue of Liberty is really getting old. Those words were written by a socialist political activist, Emma Lazarus. They are not an expression of law by Congress or anyone else.
20
@Jon W. The population of the u.s. was 1/6 what it is now when that cheesy poem was written. We are full up in the "refuse" dept.
7
@Jon W. Nope, they were written by a wealthy New Yorker. She wrote this before we had immigration laws. She wrote this because she saw that America was the only country in the world that based its nationhood on immigration.
1
The editorial mentions just one obvious motive for the proposal making it more difficult for legal immigrants to become citizens: motivating nativists to vote GOP in November. There is another, more substantive reason: reducing illegal immigration from poorer Brown countries. That’s the underlying reason for much of the Trump regime’s policy. The attack in illegal immigration was always a subterfuge (since it had been falling for a decade).
4
@Demosthenes, Whites make up only 16% of the world's population, so chances are most likely that those immigrating here are darker skinned. Those from NZ, AUS, SWITZ and Scandinavia are unlikely to be immigrating at all. Why should they?
5
Why is this controversial? Wouldn't you rather see that money going to US citizens and current green card holders?
Are the Democrats saying that they're willing to share with everyone?
20
@mannyv
Why do US citizens deserve that money? Why can't they just support themselves?
@mannyv No what we are saying is health care is a right, not a handout. Every Sunday you are taught that you are your brothers/ sisters keeper. So, this is not a legal issue, but a moral issue. Especially when this all is being used to manipulate a community to leave our country and never come back. What I do not get is that this is ‘our’ money when these same immigrants, are earning very little, and the rich keep getting richer. What percent of Trump’s Tax reduction would it take to zero out the cost of these programs.
1
It is a total shame that Trump doesn't remember where he comes from.
We all had ancestors that came here for a better life and now the current administration is saying we only want you if you fit into our plans.
This country was made great by the immigrants that came here and that should continue.
68
@BTO I don't think most Americans disagree with statement that "we were made great by immigrants and that it should continue". The real and harder question is how many should we let in and who should go to the head of the line. We can't take everyone so the criteria should be those who are best able to contribute to our country going forward. Not needing public assistance seems a reasonable starting place.
10
@BTO. Pollution laws, labor laws, speed limits everything has evolved as the times have changed. The country now has 325 million people. Third largest population on earth and the major contributor of co2 per capita. It's time to stop looking backwards to when we needed and could use vast numbers of unskilled, uneducated people. Those times are gone. We are full by any measure as is the planet.
8
@BTO Technical advances have changed the nature of the work force. When this country was chiefly an agrarian and rural society, legal immigrants could get ahead by hard work in the rural economy.
If you look at big cities, like NY, in the early 20th century you will notice the teeming slums and vast illiteracy - women working in garment factories etc. There was not welfare - you either made it on your own or died trying. It was a tough world back then and there was no food stamps. section 8 housing, medicaid etc.
Legal immigrants today must learn that the government is not there to support them. They must still make it on their own or not be allowed in this country. This country has always been about making it on your own, not about government handouts.
4
This is also affecting young scientist families as well. A very good scientist and post-doc in my lab who as a child and wife was on WIC to help ends meet. The salary of a post-doc in this city does not go very far since rents are so high. He was planning on getting a green card. Now he is fearful that they will not allow this. Scientists/Engineers/Computer professionals too have to start from somewhere and cannot always afford the city they are educated in. To deny these folks continued employment in this country is exactly like cutting off your nose to spite your face, as the engine that is driving our country is innovation! How will this make America great again?
8
@Barry The idea of facing economic realities should not apply only to the Americans in these situations. Why not defer marriage and babies until you can afford them?
2
@Barry so exactly how is this post-doc in your lab working if he is undocumented? If here on a student visa he should not be working or at least be able to support himself and his family. Ditto for a work visa. And why is he on WIC if he is undocumented?
1
We have always had a law that immigrants who became a "public charge" were deportable or inadmissible. Thank goodness we are enforcing that provision again.
Since what constitutes being a "public charge" has changed since the early 20th century, it is only right that the list be update to include more modern forms of government welfare expenditure.
This was a necessary update to and old law and I am glad to see it. Too many immigrants end up living on welfare their whole life. We do not need or want these people in the US.
19
As an Immigrant citizen of this country, I support this measure. I think most countries have this requirement of their immigrant population. There is no reason to admit people who are likely to end up as public charges. I also support other common sense measures such as means based testing for rent control and reasonable medicaid work requirements. There is no reason why either citizens or non-citizens should be taking unreasonable advantage of the system. We are all taxpayers, let us demand value for our tax dollars with compassion where it is due, but not with an open ended blank check.
37
So immigrants are supposed to pay tax (including social security tax and Medicaid tax) but not welcome to use the benefits. Got it.
Even worse, they didn't tell you "you weren't supposed to eat this" until years later. And then you are labelled "public charges".
Actually, I don't even object to it if green cards are only given to people who can support themselves. But using past history is absurd since everybody can have ups and downs. (otherwise, what's the point of social welfare, anyway?) There should at least be a time limit, say, away from social welfare for at least a year should be good enough.
Driving a few people out this or that way will perhaps save a few bucks, in the short term. But it hurts your image and public trust forever. After all, why bother with this when you have much bigger problems to solve?
8
@RandomPerson. Mass immigration is the corner stone of the Democratic Party agenda. The nyts has said as much. To be honest about this would be self defeating. When trump and the GOP deny global warming the left goes insane and says "look at the numbers!" and rightfully so. However, when the left is questioned on immigration and the true impact of importing large numbers of unskilled, uneducated people who often have large families, those questioners are called "xenophobic racists". Totally cutting off any debate. It's every bit as dishonest as the republican side.
16
@RandomPerson
I am an immigrant in this country. I came here as a graduate student. There is no such thing as a medicaid tax. There is a social security tax and a medicare tax. As a graduate student with a fellowship I paid neither. Only when I went on a H1B visa, I started paying those as I had declared my intent to immigrate by going on that visa. Both social security and medicare provide assistance to those who contribute after they retire. Under certain circumstances, those who become disabled can collect social security and medicare early. Those systems are being misused and certain loopholes need to be closed. By and large most people play by the rules and immigrants should too.
9
@RandomPerson
Exactly. This has nothing to do with enforcing the laws and doing the right thing. Trump's voter base gets fired up with moves like this. Midterms are getting close and republicans are scared, hence these dirty tactics.
1
If voters perceive that people here illegally are benefitting from tax-payer funded public assistance, including housing and medical care, that will be on the Democrats. Democrats must have a reasonable immigration plan that reasonable people can get behind, and they need to heavily promote it even if it means pushback from the far left. They can't let Republicans define them via stories like this, and language like "open borders" and "dismantle ICE".
13
@JAS
"Democrats must have a reasonable immigration plan...." Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. Where is their reasonable immigration plan? I'm wondering as well just where is their plan for replacing the ACA that they are tearing down brick by brick?
2
Many of the arguments for allowing unchecded migration is that they were net contributors, paying taxes, etc. I don't recall any studies showing that migrants were signing up in large numbers for Medicaid, food stamps, and other assistance. However it has always been the policy for legal immigrants that they have sufficient means to care for themselves and not become a burden on the public pursue. And it isn't often mention that when migrants submit income tax reports it isn't to pay taxes but to get income tax rebates.
Now this is not an argument for cutting off migrants. Nor is it to support these policies. It is a plea for more transparency so that when the truth begins to show through we aren't surprised.
If we are going to allow major migration with many years of support, we should acknowledge that and show who is going to pay \for it. Truth, transparency are powerful tools...but only for rational honest people. Why has this been hidden? Why has the press not explored it in depth? We are always asked for support for things after such exposure. Why haven't you lead? Trump isn' t the only one masking the truth.
8
I hear this over and over from people. Now that their people have made it here, let's slam the door. Despite what people are saying, this isn't really a money issue. Military spending by the U.S. dwarfs any spending we make on public assistance for refugees. It's not even close. Cutting spending might save the average American a few dollars, but not enough so you would notice and I can guarantee, the federal government won't reduce your taxes because they save a few bucks on immigrants. This action is all about keeping people who need help from coming to the U.S. I think some Americans (the ones who are currently in power) are tired of helping people. It saddens me that America has changed so much over the course of my lifetime.
8
@Independent One You are right. America since before 1776, have had waves of immigration. When they needed workers and soldiers the doors were always open. What stayed a constant were things like public education for all, some form of help until immigrants could stand on their feet. So that America became an idea in the minds of all those that had no options in their native countries. Today we are experiencing similar waves, Hispanics from drug war torn countries, refugees form destroyed cities. It is our obligation keep this idea going, and yes, we took this on as an obligation when we created this idea. I have no problem paying my fair share, as I was an immigrant as well.
@Mike WRONG. When immigrants came here until recently the only help was from private sources. Government didn’t even get into the relief business until the New Deal and then only a pittance.
1
The question of people coming to this country and then needing government financial assistance is worth discussing. The side that supports more immigration talks about immigrants being a net financial positive, that they contribute more to the economy than they take. But clearly some percentage do not. And that supports an argument for shifting our immigration rules away from family unification to a merit based point system. It isn't racist or anti-immigrant to object to people coming here who will be a burden on tax payers.
28
@Todd But it is discriminatory! I need someone to show me what percent of the most recent reduction of tax for the wealthy could pay for these services, or for universal health care. It is not a large number.
When my grandparents arrived at Ellis Island the inspectors evaluated them to ensure they would not be a burden on society and were able to take care of themselves. If a member of an entering family had a serious medical or physical condition they were denied entrance. There were no social services programs, you worked or starved. Congrats to President Trump
22
@Vincent Campbell Actually they were quarantined along with animals. Check your facts first The original immigration station on Ellis Island opened January 1, 1892, and processed 700 people that first day. ... Passengers found to have dangerous contagious diseases were taken off ships at quarantine and transferred to the hospital at either Hoffman or Swinburne Island.
"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."
This is simply not true. While it is good practice to provide preventive care, the studies show that preventive care is more expensive in the long run. In fact, the New York Times itself reported this reality just months ago. It would serve the editorial board to read its own paper.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/upshot/preventive-health-care-costs.html
8
@Abc123 Kudos on the link, but, none on your comment to the editorial board.
I suggest you read the piece, again, and look at the last part of the piece and who authored the piece. I'll provide a hint-it was not authored by the NY Times or by a journalist employed by the Times.
So, based on the piece reference your comment has no merit.
1
@Abc123 How about the humanity of it?
Performative cruelty is the alpha and the omega for right-wing policies which effect marginalised groups.
Conservatives explicitly advocate for policies which increase the misery of the poor, immigrants, refugees, detainees, and people of colour and deny them safe, comfortable, aspirational lives. Invariably, these are framed as a societal cod liver oil, a morally "difficult choice" which will ultimately lead to the improvement of the nation despite the immediate moral calamity of this-and-that policy.
Dismantling the social safety net, aggressive ICE policing, capping refugee intakes on a security basis, torturing uncharged, untried detainees in black sites, heavy-handed policing in American cities: all of these policies are pushed by the right and objectively, measurably, and disproportionately torment minorities. What's more, they are as pointless as they are cruel. Countless serious experts have discredited every single one of those ideas as needlessly cruel and totally ineffective.
However, the point of these policies is not to achieve anything. Rather, they're a narrative framework of moral compromise, wherein the more cruel and "difficult" the decision, the more it must deliver results. The logic is both circular and insidious. The Republican Party delivers actively cruel policy so that they can point to it as an indicator of success, despite a total lack of measurable result other than increasing human misery. All we get is cruelty for performance's sake.
10
The desire to drive out immigrants isn't based on economics or reason, but on prejudice and bigotry. This administration is led by the beliefs of the base, not enlightened thought. As Saudi Arabia seeks to break the egg and struggle into freedom, America is choosing to go the other way. We are now governed not by reason but by religious doctrine. In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer, and this will be based on a "survival" algorithm. Then, we will finally learn how we confuse the mind about what exactly is supposed to survive with our ridiculous beliefs. At that point we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity. See RevolutionOfReason.com ught.
6
The dirty jobs that pay poorly that Americans don't want are the reason many immigrants come here and get hired.If someone needs medical care and can't afford it then it seems cruel to deny a green card or visa for that reason. Nurtrition assistance for those who can't work is needed but religious orgs and other non profits not the gov't should take charge. Most anyone who wants a job(low paying) can get one which is why I'm guessing this program of the Trump administration will be popular with voters
3
Along these lines, earlier this year Switzerland passed a law requiring that immigrants who have received public benefits must repay those amounts before they can become citizens. What a great idea.
And why would anyone oppose deporting illegal immigrants or denying them benefits? By definition they are in this country illegally, in violation of US laws. No other country permits such nonsense.
46
Illegal immigrants are not eligible for benefits. This discussion is about legal immigrants. Get your facts straight.
6
@Sarah I stand by my comment that Switzerland now requires (legal) immigrants who have received public benefits must repay those amounts before they can become citizens. A great idea.
In Switzerland and almost all other countries illegal immigrants are quickly deported.
1
Illegal Immigrants get caught up in the US shadow economy. They work at small business as Day Laborers. Many Legal immagrents with green cards work at jobs some paying minimum wages. The balance of subsistence is made up through food stamps and Medicade. Now comes the foolish end. Are small business's expected to pay livable wages? Are the legal and illegal expected to jump and run back to their country of orign? I doubt that will happen.
1
After reading the comments, I have one thing to say: the piece is about *legal* immigrants who don't yet have their green cards. It has nothing whatsoever to do with illegal immigration.
Please read the piece before triggering.
19
And so what is the Democratic Party solution? Same old, same old? Why is the party not even mentioned offering any kind of alternative?
12
@Mr. Slater. The democratic "solution" is always the same. We need more, not less, mass immigration as well as another amnesty.
8
It is not in our national interest to take in indigent migrants who can't support themselves or their families. Why do we want to be the world's dump? We should be the world's Harvard.
We simply don't need to grow the population any more- our immigration system should be guided by a preference for quality, not quantity.
30
How many thousands of American citizens will now be denied healthcare, a decent roof over their heads, heating and school lunches because they have a custodial parent waiting for a green card? These are OUR people.
9
So, denying poor people health care and food stamps is now going to be the calling card of Donald Trump? Madness!
Our cemeteries are full of tens of thousands of poor immigrants who fought and died for our country. Most of our wealthy immigrants, including the son of an extremely wealthy man who cheated his way to his wealth, never serve in our armed forces, or do anything but take from the poor to put in their wealthy pockets.
A wealthy country would not necessarily be a decent country. And people who think that wealth is the same as decency are fooling themselves.
4
Why should we allow anyone into our country who might become a public charge? Any program that discourages immigration or breaking and entering is fine in my book. The problem is the children. Parents use the U.S. soil birth of their child to gain a toehold. Then before you know it the whole family is here. Look at Melania's parents. She came here under dubious circumstances, some kind of genius loophole. Then once exposed, she took her resume showing a college degree down. She doesn't have a degree. What did the U.S. gain by admitting Melania? Maybe we should ask Marla Maples?
15
I don't see what the problem is with this idea. Many other countries have immigration policies that require immigrants to show they are able to support themselves, that they bring something to the table (economic/technical).
If US citizens want to have immigrants, they should sponsor and assume full support for immigrant without help from other taxpaying citizens.
38
From reading previous NYT editorials and columns on this issue I thought that all immigrants were harder working, more productive, more entrepreneurial, more intelligent, wiser, and better educated than Americans?
Surely these changes will not have a huge impact on immigrants as they are all above average.
I mean by the reaction to these changes one would almost believe that the US had been admitting SOME immigrants who were drains on the system and higher users of public assistance. But I know that can't be the case.
39
@Lilo. Who knew that the backbone of the economy, the entrepreneurial life's blood of the nation, the essence of the 21 st century way forward would need public assistance?
9
We need to understand the HS graduates, US born or otherwise, ultimately cost us more than we get in taxes. Those without HS do even worse. Nonetheless we need workers for many roles and should support them in bad times and not punish them for the small assistance we provide. The largest benefits paid by tax payers is often public education. I pay a good deal in taxes but am happy that I am doing well.
5
Many of these comments are about the monetary cost of providing or refusing benefits. But when I think of public medical benefits, I think of routine vaccinations or our response to the inevitable future epidemic. We are all paying the price when we become surrounded by people who are afraid to seek preventive treatment.
11
I am a progressive who loathes Donald Trump. But even a broken clock is correct twice a day, and this rule is sensible. The incredible national debt is sustainable only as long as the dollar is the world’s default currency. and the yuan may replace it at some point within a generation or so. Then our children will be paupers, enslaved to debt and interest rates that will make Greece’s recent troubles seem like a picnic. It is to all our childrens’ interests to get non-citizens off public services, and, yes - to get them to go home.
46
@Charles Zigmund Just do the math, what percentage of the increased national debt could provide services for legal immigrants on their path to citizenship. No this is about reducing legal migration and another xenophobic plan fro Mr. Miller. We keep missing the point, America is an idea, a unique idea that can more than accommodate those that have no realistic option in their home countries. I should know, I am a naturalized citizen.
Legal immigrants should be allowed to receive temporary support during times of hardships. Denying visas otherwise would be damaging to families, businesses and communities.
Otherwise, I see open abuse of benefits by certain immigrant families is widespread in my town. These are not poor immigrants, but educated and affluent individuals who established systems to abuse benefits. Whe my Asian mother in law visited recently she met several elderly retired couples from her country who were brought in by their immigrant children. They openly stated that they had withheld information about their generous pensions from their homeland, and ownership of highly valuable real estate in cities such as Beijing or Shanghai. Instead they claimed poverty status to receive food stamps and public housing benefits, taking valuable resources away from poor families in our community. And their children worked as highly paid professors, physicians and professional at local universities, hospitals and companies. My in laws were very upset about this abused and ashamed of their countrymen.
In conclusion, yes, temporary support must be given. However, fraud and foreign assets should be persecuted .
16
@EJAs old as our tax system. System fault or immigrants fault?
Decreasing access to healthcare, nutritious food, and decent housing for one part of the population hurts ALL of us, since untreated diseases can spread, emergency rooms become overrun. My child's education is affected when her classmates have trouble studying because they don' t have decent food or stable housing. Furthermore, regarding many of the comments here, I don't understand the grandchildren of immigrants who have turned against immigration. When my great-grandfather came over there were no quotas, no numerical limits on immigrants from Europe or the rest of the Americas. I have no idea if he had any kind of "legal" status or not since the categories illegal/legal didn't really exist at that time. His son rose from poverty to own a factory and help build the economy of upstate NY. Now his grandson is being cared for in his infirm old age by more recent immigrants, who are also paying taxes and contributing to Social Security and Medicare for ALL of us.
11
The editorial states the government “proposed a rule that would enable it to deny green cards and visas to immigrants here legally who have used public health and nutrition assistance, including Medicaid and food stamps.” As an immigrant who went through the process of first obtaining a visa to enter the country, then applied and received a green card, and ultimately became a citizen, I do not understand the outrage. First, if you come as a tourist and decide to apply for a change of status, you must have a sponsor and both you and the sponsor must show you have sufficient resources. In addition, the sponsor has to agree to provide all the necessary assistance and to reimburse the government if the proposed immigrant receives government benefits. Second, if you come under an HB-1 visa (allowed to work) you have been sponsored by your employer so no need for government assistance. If you decide to get a green card, you need your sponsor to show you will not need government benefits. And the editorial makes clear that asylum seekers will be excluded from the proposed rule. So, who will be affected? It would be helpful if the editorial would make that clear instead of painting a picture of doom and gloom that may not have any relation to reality.
12
The Open-Borders Editorial Board does not surprise anyone with this opinion. For once, it would be refreshing to hear you admit that money is not unlimited and there are many, many needy American Citizens who could be helped instead of foreign economic immigrants coming here to receive benefits paid for by US tax payer. It was always this way, not your way! Immigrants at Ellis Island were checked for illness and ability to not be a public charge. This is not just Trump but most past administrations, as well as just common sense!
30
@Trilby just curious if you know the histories of Ellis Island immigrants? My grandfather died in a coal mine and his widow needed food baskets to get by. Ellis Island immigrants were often poor, relied on occasional charity etc.
Sure the money is not unlimited. But if we simply starve immigrants we don't really do ourselves any favors. What we do is create the sort of underclass that ends up resorting to crime.
7
@Terry McKenna. We have already created an under class and are adding to it all the time. This is not 1910 America where just showing up and using a shovel got you a job. The incredible poverty of that time was slowly whittled down and is now increasing as we import more and more poverty.
1
May I suggest you book yourself a visit to Ellis Island to learn about the process of being admitted. I believe the standard was enough funds to sustain yourself for one month.
By the way not all government assistance is painted with the same brush. Deductible mortgage interest, mileage allowance, subsidies for oil companies, farm subsidies.
Then there is the 2018 give money that we don’t have to rich people tax break.
4
I suspect that the NYT editorial board and its reader base may diverge on this issue.
Immigration is great - when it works in our favor. We aren't the refugee ground for those who need ongoing support in life; we're a place for new opportunity.
Every country with a well rationalized immigration system makes work and the minimization of a need for public services a cornerstone of the process. We should be no different.
20
The point of immigration should be for immigrants to have greater opportunities in their new country. If they need to rely on social services in their new country that is not happening. From the immigrants perspective it really does not make sense to stay in a new country which they aren’t financially stable in.
In the US, it is common for people to stay in the same city or state when they are unemployed. People have a hard time moving -but that doesn’t mean it’s the best financial decision is to stay. Many immigrants move from country to country looking for new opportunities. It’s fairly sensible and what people should be doing rather than staying and using financial aid
19
For decades, multiple administrations did an end run around duly passed immigration laws with 'deferred' and 'temporary' programs that never ended.
Not a surprise that backdoor amnesty is now being met with backdoor deportation.
If Congress acted to clarify immigration law and get rid of the loopholes and the federal government were allowed to and actually chose to enforce those laws, the backdoor, arbitrary and ultimately corrupted policy wrangling that does not serve immigrants or citizens, would be minimized.
16
United States history is the story of the penniless achieving success through hard work and this is the story of most who come here. The proposed rules are a cruel rejection of giving a helping hand to new arrivals and is already impacting those who are eligible, especially the children. While the fact that Trump's grandfather would not have been eligible under the proposed rules might be considered a good thing, he too found success [alas in running houses of ill repute]. The proposed rules are un-American.
7
@Tom Miller Complete nonsense. We did not have a robust welfare state during the great migration waves of the 19th and early 20th centuries, so people who came had to sink or swim. There was no Medicaid. There was no Section 8. There were no EBT cards.
What's un-American is advocating filling up America with a permanent welfare class (like you've done in your own state of California) for electoral control.
5
@Jon W.
Ah, the glory days of starvation and tuberculosis. Is that what's going to "make America great again?"
1
@Jon W. Is that why Ca is the 6th largest economy in the world, or 60% of the US economy. Seems to work for them.
Am I missing something? Except for special categories like adjudicated refugees and battered spouses, use of public assistance has been a basis for disqualification for a green card for decades. This. Is. Not. New. Plenty of things DJT does ARE changes for the worse, but on immigration the law hasn't changed one jot on his watch (his wishes notwithstanding).
43
The 2 major reasons why there has been a national debt of 20 Trillion dollar national debt until Obama left office and another 2 trillion since Trump became president is the spending by the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Defense. With the highest debt pf any nation America can no longer afford being the most generous nation allowing being the nation being taken advantage of for as has happened for decades.
US needs to at some point at least for a brief period put its own house in order and prioritize the welfare of its own own working class, average Americans, citizens and legal residents and those who serve and have served the country in overseas wars. From time to time the US does need to revisit the immigration and naturalization policies and regulate the population growth within the framework of continuing to be a country of legal, vetted and meritorious immigrants.
There are currently 22 million undocumented persons in the USA flooding the megacities without insufficient health care services even for all the American citizens and legal permanent residents. America is no longer a caring land of opportunity if population explodes beyond the capacity to optimally care for all the people currently within the boundaries of USA.
The thinking of the Department of Immigration and naturalization (DIN) has been that every non American entering the USA is a potential immigrant. The DIN has changed to Homeland security without change in thinking.
18
@Girish Kotwal It would be great to quantify the impact of more restrictive immigration like this compared to recent tax cuts as it relates to driving up the national debt. I suspect the tax cuts trump (pun intended) in magnitude.
2
I'd like to see Congress actually do their jobs. Please provide legislation which sets out clear policy as well as specific rules.
While I don't agree with the specific Depart of Homeland Security rules, the Trump administration is within its right to set the criteria. And there's logic there to be sure (as well as meanness).
But if we don't like it, the answer is fix the law. What happened to immigration reform legislation?
The fact is the country needs more immigrants to: 1) grow the economy. Employers can't grow without employees, no matter how much we reduce corporate taxes. 2) to balance Social Security. The age demographics of our country means a certain demise of the program without radical changes. More young people that work is a great way to mitigate clear problems and immigrants tend to be younger.
15
@deedubs
We don't need more immigrants for the economy or social security. There are tons of jobs that could be automated (cashiers, waiters, etc) to make due with our current population if actual labor shortages occur not just inability to find workers for current low wages. For social security the answer is reform not an ever expanding population, which can't continue forever regardless, and thus at some point social security will have to be reformed anyway.
8
@deedubs,
This country does not need more immigrants.
We need to modernize our economy- automate it. Make it a 21st century economy. We do not need hordes of unskilled laborers.
Social Security must be reformed. It is not feasible to have ever larger generations of people. The program must function with a stable population.
More and more people is not a good thing.
1
@deedubs Agreed, but we need to take the drama, hate and racism out of the equation. We also need to put into the engagement a new AMERICAN growth plan that looks at US regions, not States, to build new cities and economies. We then need to revisit our funding priorities...Défense vs Growth, Education and Growth etc.
Many of Trump's base are allegedly Christians. What part of the teachings of Jesus are are they deliberately flouting in terms if aiding the sick, feeding the hungry, and welcoming the stranger?
these voters are Pharisees, living by strict rules without even exuding an ounce of Christan compassion and mercy.
The board is right: Donald Trump is ruling by fear and hatred. But we can change that come November if this isn't the America we want it to be
61
@ChristineMcM Agreed. This is a human rights violation.
Threatening the sick has become the norm among Republicans and from the responses to this story, it has triggered a “bot” style assault on normal compassionate largess toward the sick. Caring for the sick is what all doctors and nurses have sworn to do and are required to do under the law regardless of the race, religion, or national origin of patients. Contained in this plan, is a threat to all poor persons. Those who support this policy do not have a great leap to concluding that they just don’t want to pay for poor sick people. Their righteousness stinks up public discourse appealing to our racist, tribal resentments.
@ChristineMcM What is the end to your argument? That because Christianity requires personal charity, that every Christian nation must completely mortgage its sovereignty and open its borders to the entire world? Your argument is an emotional one, that, if taken to its logical conclusion, would bankrupt us within a few years.
7
@Honeybee . You would do well to do some basic research into how Social Security works. I'll do it for you: the system is based on mandatory contributions from worker's salaries matched by contributions from their employers. It is not an entitlement and is not subject to means-testing based on home ownership. But since you want to engage in speculation, imagine what funds would be available if the tax loopholes and shelters available to the top 10% were closed.
my father, a Navy vet, born and raised here, worked for as long as he was able. who suffered from dementia in the last seven years of his life, received zero government help from the various agencies set up for social services. I called and called state, local and federal agencies -- nothing available. So, when I read about helping people from other countries, my enthusiasm is quite low.
47
@berrylib I'm very sorry about your father's decline. My father is in a somewhat similar situation, though with a government pension that covers part of his costs. The people we're paying to care for him, help with feeding, toileting, grooming, bathing, transferring, and keeping him from falling? Almost all immigrants, and they are paying taxes, including social security and medicare, and contributing to growing the economy as well as providing needed services. His grandfather? An immigrant who rose from poverty to own a factory and employ hundreds of people. We need more immigrants, not fewer.
12
@berrylib
Working out personal resentments and anger against total strangers is not a healthy state of mind. Nor a civic philosophy.
2
@berrylib Your failure to negotiate the terms of government programs is not the fault of immigrants! People who have assets (like a home or property) that if sold will pay for their care are not eligible to receive any assistance and that's the way Republicans want it! They want everyone to pay for themselves. Your Dad received nothing because Republicans do not want a social safety net that will allow you to protect your assets. This is the jagged little pill none of you want to swallow.
1
The world has too many people, and many of them would like to come here.
We have been attracting people from other countries who have paid for their own skills, such as doctors or nurses, and not have to pay to train our own people. Unfortunately for this approach, we have no way to get rid of the people already here legally who are not trained and who are unwilling or unable to pay for their own training (usually by plunging into debt) and are not satisfied with the low-paying and insecure jobs otherwise available. They have been getting unhappy at their dead-end and generally unneeded status.
If we cut down on this sort of immigration we will have to pay to train our own doctors, or at least make more money available for them to borrow.
We were unofficially allowing foreigners to come in and do low-paying and insecure jobs. We have cut down on this, but we are unwilling to improve the jobs to the point where our own citizens would be more interested in doing them, so we need high unemployment and lack of a safety net to force them.
So at least our new attitude towards immigration does not regard it mainly in business terms.
14
@sdavidc9 Do you really think that people need to be "forced" to train for decent jobs? All they need is a way to live while they train and not be facing a mountain of debt when they leave training. The fact is- America reserves the best jobs for those who were born with the most socially connected and well off parents. Don't assume that someone in a lousy low-paying job is unskilled or unable to do better. Many of us are stuck with what's available.
2
@Geraldine
Companies want to hire already trained workers rather than go through the expense of training them. So they lure trained workers from other companies, which means that the way to succeed is to job-hop, and those who are good at job-hopping rather than doing their jobs are often the ones with the most stellar careers.
1
"Scaring vulnerable populations off public assistance is likely to cost much more in the long run"
But will those costs be borne by the US taxpayer? The entire point of this program is to gradually force those who are not self sufficient to leave by letting their visas expire and not reauthorizing them to remain in the US.
There are exceptions for refugees and asylum applicants, juveniles, and those with temporary protected status (given after a natural disaster in the immigrant's home country). Seems fair.
71
@Informer Lou Dobbs has poisoned GOP minds. People that have green cards most likely had work and would work if they could. No one hands out green cards.
If something happens to them, like the same things that happen to US citizens, say a health problem or a car accident and they can't work, then you want to kick them out? What about US citizens that can't work or on public programs? Kick them out?
What is wrong with you good people? Is your life so secure and moneyed and your health so great you'll never need help? Nothing bad ever happens to you? Your family? Neighbors? And you do not care at all about their welfare? Shame on all of you.
6
In principle a good idea but ignores the realities. Here in Switzerland naturalisation is denied to applicants receiving public assistance in previous five years.
But there is a way out, they just have to pay the monies back.
78
@Thomas
Oh, yeah, That'll happen. And from what source of funds?
1
The parents of POTUS' wife are in their 70s and will be using benefits meant for retired American citizens. I would bet they take much more than the small sums of money that would help immigrants to get on their feet.
But all of that is dwarfed by the reputational damage being done to our country. Who in their right minds would want to come to this country when the rules can change without notice? The best and the brightest will go elsewhere - and America's competitive edge will continue to degrade.
64
@MS The "best and the brightest" aren't on these welfare programs to begin with.
3
How do you know this?
The idea that our government provides a functional application processing system for seekers of asylum, visas, green cards or anything else we require of immigrants before they can settle here legally is a deceptive pretense, trapping those who wish to comply in a nightmarish Catch-22.
It seems particularly cruel to rage at those who in fact want to comply with our laws, while we've simultaneously whittled away at, or just plain ignored the operations of, the departments charged with responding to those who have attempted to do what our country asks.
If we had staffed those offices and allocated to resources to ensure that asylum, visa, and residency applications were processed on a fair and timely basis, we wouldn't be faced with anywhere near the vast number of illegal immigrants living here now, and of the legal immigrants to our country, fewer would be in need of public assistance. Or do we want them to work here illegally so they don't need it?
We've thus contributed our fair share, if not the most part, to the immigration situation so many Americans complain of and like to obsess on. But only this sadistic adminstration would turn the hypocrisy of the situation on its head and behave as though we've been the victims, and not the perpetrators, of abuse.
26
@Sachi G No. What you're suggesting is that we INCREASE the flow of immigration. There is no good reason to do that.
5
@Sachi G Don't kid yourself. Yes, we need to fully staff up to process applicants in a timely manner to avoid detaining people in makeshift prisons. But how many of those denied asylum status will return to their country of origin? How many will stay and slip into the shadows? How many will appear to go back and just sneak in again?
4
Here in Boston, multiple subsidized senior housing complexes are filled with so-called "refugees" from China and other countries who never worked here one day, who often hide their money to qualify for benefits, and quietly enjoy all the perks including Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, food stamps, you name it. I'm told by the few remaining US-born residents in these buildings, that it's getting kinda lonely: no one speaks English anymore. And, folks have to wait for years now because the "refugees" aren't moving out anytime soon. The resentment all this is causing is very real and should be ignored by the Democratic party only at their own risk.
160
@Cazanueva looks like the alarm went out to the resentful white people to defend using sickness to identify illegals and deport them or demand reparations from them. Lovely.
I have an idea: let’s demand reparations from the tobacco industry to cover the costs of those addicted. Maybe Purdue Pharma could be made to pay for the dead and the hospitalized and harm done to families and communities as a consequence of their knowing misrepresentation and aggressive marketing of OxvContin?
Wouldn’t that be fair in the context of revenge?
2
But, at the immigration museum at Ellis Island in New York Harbor it is explained that the "huddled masses" who emigrated from Europe had to be "in good health" and "not dependent on the public purse". As a tourist my take on President Trumps edict is that it is simply a verification of the USA's original mandate on immigration.
73
@S Sm You missed the part of the Ellis Island museum where there was a hospital to cure them of their illnesses!
6
@Geraldine - No, not all were hospitalized and got to remain once cured. Many were sent back the way they came. The Red Star Line, was responsible for the return trip of those who were not allowed in. The immigrants were vetted.
Kirstjen Nielsen, good old Danish name, just like my last name is a good old Swedish name. Paternal grandparents came to America as teenagers - from Denmark, not Norway as some not so well informed Congressman wondered.
Always been interested in the apparent frequency with which people with Nordic last names turn up as right-wing Republicans or Tea Party types. Even Donald Trump tried to claim that he had Swedish genes, at least for a while, since having German genes was not 100 acceptable - so think people who believe that haplotype is destiny.
In Nielsen's case she very well may think as even Hillary Clinton did when she HC said, I do not want to make the US Denmark.
Would be interested in knowing if Nielsen thinks her teen-age grandparents should have been sent back.
Grateful that Sweden let me in - childhood promise to my Swedish grandmother.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
15
When her grandparents came to this country there were no “social services “.
As an immigrant you had no free medical services, free food or housing etc.
Knowing you had to make it on your own, made a difference in their decision to come to America
4
US public services and assistance are quite generous to immigrants, both legal and illegal. For comparison, in Australia legal immigrants on working visas but without permanent residency status (analog of the green card) not only do not get any social assistance whatsoever, but they even cannot enrol their children into public schools without paying the non-resident tuition fees, which amount to almost $12,000 per child annually. Social services are strictly for citizens and permanent residents, not for foreigners who reside temporarily in the country. That is just common sense - it helps to keep the costs down and the taxes low. And there is no need to check whether the foreigners received any government help when they apply for permanent residency - they could not and did not. Foreigners also do not vote, so their inconvenience is of no political consequence. But somehow, there is still no shortage of people willing to come to Australia for work. So what would be the purpose of spending all that extra money on them?
92
@David “So what would be the purpose of spending all that extra money on them?”
Reasoned like a true sociopath. I suppose treating people with a little basic human decency has never occured to you as a reason. After all, an immigrant who arrived legally may be affected by economic downturns, changes in their industries, or just simple bad luck. They may lose the gainful employment they had, even just temporarily.
28
@David
Australia's policies on illegal immigration and detention are often cited as a crime against humanity in the strictest legal sense. Personally, I would would be leery of citing Australian immigration law as an exemplar of either prudence or humanity.
24
@CV On the contrary, David is not referring to immigrants, just those with a work visa and accompanying family. This is sensible.
The administration claims it is against illegal immigration, but in every way it is going after legal immigration, trying to limit the numbers of legal immigrants in whatever way possible. Since Congress didn't pass the RAISE Act which was supported by the administration, which would have cut legal immigration by 50% each year, it has to find other ways, including this. This cruel action will take away healthcare from poorer immigrants working undesirable, lower-paying jobs. Meanwhile, these same immigrants, will still be required to pay taxes.
24
@Mel,
If they find things too unfair here they can always return home.
1
Maybe we all will. Then you can find your own nurses, health aides, doctors, cooks, nannies, cleaners, gardeners, fruit pickers and scientists. MAGA, amirite?
1
"There’s a real debate to be had over the criteria to decide who can stay in this country and who must go. What is the right way to manage family migration? Or evaluate asylum claims? Or weigh American labor needs against the skills of prospective visa holders? But cultivating xenophobia, as President Trump has done from the beginning of his campaign, and then trading on that fear to drum up votes, does not create much of a foundation for rational dialogue."
I am somewhat confused? Who gets to decide the parameters of of the "debate"? The NYT Editorial Board? Or when is the debate "real"? When the outcome is according to the policy of one particular side?
US immigration policy has never been too positive regarding those who might become "public charges". Often one could not even leave Ellis Island (when immigrants would arrive there) if they were deemed to be "public charge" material.
As the editorial points out, Green cards are already denied to those likely to become "public charges". The new rules would expand the definition.
The editorial states that the present action is politically driven and thus not part of the "real debate".
Everything, even NYT editorials, is politically driven. Those are the rules of the game. The winner gets to set the rules.
28
The voters of this country get to decide.
2
Since these programs are part of the tax payer funded social safety net, I assume that legal immigrants will also be exempted from paying income and Social Security taxes. Why should they pay for services that they can not use? Fair is fair. And by this rule, foreign corporations that want to do business in the U.S. should not be eligible for tax abatement. If they can not prosper in this country without corporate welfare, then they should not be here.
84
@McCamy Taylor
No, they should pay those taxes, since that is the cost of the benefit of being here. Or should everne’s taxes b pro rated for services they do not use? Otherwise, these immigrants are welcome to stay in their home countries.
2
@McCamy Taylor Legal immigrants should be considered as buying their way into the system, so yes, they should pay our taxes. If they were exempt from taxes there would be an incentive for employers to hire foreigners...
Oh, you must mean like like the badly abused OPT program expanded by Obama that gutted the chances of many US STEM students trying to get a job in academia to help pay their advanced degrees?
Go check out how much taxes are paid for foreign students on OPT visas and recognize how that has harmed American students and caused them to be discriminated against in their own country.
So NO, no tax preferences for people on visas.
4
@McCamy Taylor No, of course they should pay those taxes. Think of them as an entry fee. Once they become citizens, they will be entitled to everything American citizens are entitled to.
1
Google: What John Quincy Adams said about immigration will blow your mind." You will then read a letter he wrote to a prospective German immigrant. JQA was our Secretary of State at the time and he didn't pull any punches.
As for denying green cards to those who are essentially welfare recipients, the Democrats should go along with this initiative. This will be just another nail in the coffin of the GOP, right? The American people are better than that, right?
1
When I sponsored a family member I remember we had to agree that I was responsible for her not being dependent on any form of public assistance. We were living very modestly at the time, probably far below poverty. While her classmates got free lunch she brought hers, no food stamps, we had to buy health insurance that cost us 25% of income (Golden Rule LOL) I remember her classmate whose dad was sponsored by the University Physics Department got free lunch as a Chinese citizen. It's very difficult to earn a living wage in the USA today. I guess we should have less immigration until wages rise, and certainly no illegal immigration.
62
Perhaps this should be retroactive, so that anyone whose immigrant forbears ever claimed benefits in the past would have their citizenship revoked. That would help eliminate our current president and probably half of Congress.
When there are working poor left to pay taxes and take care of the wealthy, then where will the tax-avoiding wealthy be? They haven't figured that out, have they?
12
So what's the problem here? Is there anything that immigrants, legal or illegal, can do that would result in the NYT finally agreeing some don't belong in the US?
99
@Brian in FL
Who doesn't "belong" in the US? Do tell.
"The Trump administration, however, is betting that a very public effort to crack down on immigrants, whether they’re here legally or not, will motivate its political base in time for the midterm elections."
Utterly revolting that this administration would put the most vulnerable at risk for political gain provoking racist ideology.
How about instituting his "beautiful" infrastructure plan to motivate his political base using the money from his 1.5 trillion dollar tax cuts benefitting big business and upper income earners.
36
I continue to think that this administration can no longer shock me by how it will cause hurt and stress to both legal and undocumented people.
But I continue to be wrong. There seems to be no bottom to how low they will go to punish people who don't look like they do.
Disgusting.
27
The ongoing discouragement of immigration of any kind will have negative outcomes. Small town America would have very few Medical Doctors with out immigrant doctors. Check small town hospitals and discover how may are from the Philippines for instance.
10
@Riverwoman - If you are a doctor, surely you can make at least $120K. That kind of puts the kibosh on food stamps, doesn't it?
5
@Jonathan This is a common tactic from open borders fanatics. They cite the positive statistics with respect to educated immigrants working as doctors and engineers and imply that those are similarly representative of uneducated, unskilled Americans as well.
1
@Jonathan. I have known several qualified doctors who could not work as doctors in the US until they finished years long training programs and passed the board exams in their specialties. Just having a medical degree from some country does not make you eligible for a physician's job. These people often have to work at all kinds of low paying occupations while retraining in order to pass the US qualifying exams. This is a good thing. We need our US doctors to speak English and have the same knowledge base that US trained doctors have. But during these many years, they are not "pulling down at least $120K." And after they qualify these people often end up in underserved urban or rural areas where the pay rate is far below your estimate.
1
This measure to punish immigrants is, indeed, cruel beyond measure, but is the usual terrain that Trump travels in, devoid of all logic, just a crude emotional tool to use his base at his pleasure whims and power-hungry despotism. This vulgar bully, discriminator in-chief, has no feelings whatsoever, classic xenophobia by any other name.
12
@manfred marcus Expecting someone to maintain their own financial support is cruel now?
2
@Margo You know what I mean, let's not split hairs here; common decency requires we help out when any human being falls behind and of no fault of his/hers. At the end, we are all immigrants, except for those forced (see Slavery), others pushed into reservations (Natives). Let's practice the 'Golden Rule', shall we? And hope we ourselves will never ever need assistance (??).
While Trump may be incorrect and boorish, most republicans and many independents/democrats agree with him on his signature issue: illegal immigration.
The article is arguing against basic common sense. If illegal immigrants are allowed the full social benefits, it simply obviates the need for us citizenship or borders. Moreover, the many who go through the perilous and expensive legal pathway are simply suckers, as illegal immigrants can jump in front of the line. Anyone can easily look online and learn the buzzwords to gain refugee status.
Most of all, allowing for social benefits for illegal immigrants will simply bring more illegal immigrants in an endless chain, as there is no down side. Please see exhibit A: California. Illegal immigrants already enjoy free public school and free ER care, which weigh on property taxes and health care premiums of tax paying citizens.
We need to be pragmatic on this issue: enforce the borders and e-verify. If a democratic candidate can simply be reasonable on the issue, rather than going far left abolish ice/bring dreamers to state of the union, etc, they can beat Trump. Otherwise, just as seen with most elections throughout the world, Trump and his actually sane stance on immigration will win again. As a side note, as a midwesterner who voted for Obama and HRC, the current frontrunners of Harris/Warren/Booker will get crushed in the midwest despite the endless coastal enthusiasm. The coasts simply don't get it.
121
@Satishk Unfortunately you seem to have not read the article, which concerns benefits given to legal rather than illegal immigrants. This new rule is denying benefits to legal immigrants who currently are allowed certain benefits, illegal immigrants already do not get benefits. But since we're on the topic, enforcing the borders alone won't work, immigrants can fly over on planes and overstay visas. Employers will continue to hire immigrants where there are shortages of US workers to do those jobs, a problem which already exists in a number of industries and is getting worse with the retirement of the Baby Boomers. The solution is a legal immigration system which allows the country's labor needs to be met. As of now, the system is mostly family-based.
17
@Satishk -- The Midwest doesn't have enough electoral votes to deny a sound Democratic candidate the presidency. All Dems likely need to do is regain two of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida and they're in the clear (and maybe for years to come). And that doesn't count purple states such as North Carolina, Arizona, Wisconsin and Georgia. I agree, though, that Booker and Harris likely would not get the job done, even against an extremely flawed and disliked candidate like the Trumpster. But given the state of politics these days and the swinging of the educated female vote toward the left (or against Trump), Warren is a much stronger candidate than Hillary.
5
@Satishk Illegal immigrants are already denied benefits. The new rules are solely about legal immigrants.
11
This proposed rule has all the cruel, exclusionary, and hateful characteristics of yet another foul idea hatched in the twisted, unAmerican mind of the Fake President’s anti-immigrant guru, Stephen Miller. The cowed, embarrassing Trump sycophant and Homeland Security Director Nielsen of course bears responsibility for this travesty also. Don’t these people realize that there will be a public reckoning for their inhumane policies at some future time?
51
@John Grillo What is inhumane? Expecting resources to be provided non-stop at a cost to society?
2
It's mind boggling to me that anyone can support the mass immigration of people who will not be able to support themselves. It's almost as though you only support this for permanent Democrat Party votes.
95
@Jon W. Unfortunately many are working hard labor or otherwise unattractive jobs that enough US citizens don't want. Despite being unattractive jobs, they often don't pay a living wage. Immigrants who do those jobs (and also pay taxes) should be entitled to use of the social safety net, just as Americans who work low-wage jobs are.
8
@Honeybee
Check out the U. S. Department of Labor's projections for occupations with the most job growth to 2026: https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/occupations-most-job-growth.htm
The majority of occupations listed are unattractive, low wage, and often short-term jobs like construction laborers, groundskeeping workers, fast food workers, cleaners, and - the two with the highest projected need - personal care aides in nursing homes and home health aides (38.6% and 47.3% growth respectively). With the low unemployment rates that the administration boasts of, there will be plenty of jobs for both native-born and immigrant workers, but both groups will need some extra help from time to time (food stamps or medicaid - not cash "welfare") to make ends meet. After all, how much more are most of us going to be able to spend to entice the college grad next door to push our wheelchairs and change our Depends?
1
@Jon W.
@Jon W.
There is no such thing as "mass immigration". Doesn't happen, has never happened.
1
America has had enough of being saddled with paying for the upkeep of immigrants. Immigrants should only be allowed passage into this country if the meet the following.... 1 are educated, 2... have a skill that will allow them to be self sufficient and not require public assistance of any type, 3.... be fully vetted and are not a potential threat to our communities. 4 …. that they show after in 6 month they are employed.
103
My Grandfather came to this country in 1909. He arrived in San Francisco uneducated and unable to speak English. Not sure how much public assistance if any he received.
His oldest son, my father was a successful businessman in restaurants and later manufacturing.
My sister holds a PhD from New York University.
I am a Field Engineer for Carestream Health the former Eastman Kodak Company Health Imaging division.
His other son, my uncle was an Electrical Engineer for International Business Machines.
His son, my cousin is a Senior Vice President for Smithsonian Enterprises.
None of this is possible with out the courage and sacrifice my Grandfather endured.
37
@Bill Cunnane
These aren't the ones the farmers need. You will pay higher grocery bills as a result.
7
@Bill Cunnane Any skill or education an immigrant has from the country they leave, is not valid at all when they arrive in the US.
A legal immigrant can be a medical doctor, or an accountant in the country he/she leaves, but is not allowed to work as such in the US. A very skilled and educated legal immigrant will have to start all over again and prove it. Back to medical school, back to accountant classes and redo the exams. I have seen legal immigrants with very high education in their 'own' countries become cleaning ladies or do other low paying jobs to get by and start all over. No, this is not done in 6 months... This sometimes takes years!
22
Truly disgusting. Nearly all of the “ people “ designing and implementing these proposals have never had to actually WORK for a living. Spokesmodels and Scammers. Seriously.
17
Immigration activists have loudly proclaimed that that all illegal aliens in the United States are working and not getting any social welfare benefits.
So, there is no reason to oppose the new rules, because they will have no impact.
Right?
86
@John Many commenters here, including you, seem not to have read the article, which concerns taking away benefits from LEGAL immigrants. So yes, they will have impact, esp on legal immigrants working lower-wage jobs, just as they would on US citizens working lower-wage jobs if their social safety net were taken away.
22
@John: You say "So, there is no reason to oppose the new rules, because they will have no impact." after pointing out that illegal immigrants get no benefits.
The flaw in your argument is that the regulation relates to *legal* immigrants, not illegal.
2
@John
you clearly haven't read the article. it is about LEGAL immigrants. Illegal immigrants don't qualify for these benefits.
Like the general population, there is poverty among immigrants, but as a whole immigrants receive significantly less welfare.
2
The actions of this administration against legal and illegal immigrants are appalling. Trump is furthering his bullying tactics that he used in real estate business dealings to depress an already a disenfranchised class. Looking at him, one sees America, not as a beacon of liberty, tolerance and democracy, but a country in the grips of a despot, a nit witted barbarian who has no consistent policy except to humiliate and insult his opponents. Yet, the scariest question is what comes after this toad.
6
I am very supportive of immigrants, both legal and illegal. I have hired illegal for child care and yard care and I have worked together with Dreamers. I also believe that, even before Trump, we were accepting too few refugees.
All that having been said, I oppose deceptive arguments about almost anything. And the argument here seems deceptive.
Legal permanent residents have green cards. And the proposal here does not restrict green card holders in any way. Only those without green cards are denied Medicaid and food stamps. Those affected are here legally in the country -- perhaps on a temporary work visa or a travel visa. And they are applying for a green card because they want to turn temporary into permanent.
Until an immigrant gets a green card, he or she is a short timer. And the question is whether we want to give long term assistance to short timers. Giving such assistance is tantamount to treating guests like family. I don't think I'm sufficiently pro-immigrant to sign on to that.
37
@michjas
Just because you don't have a green card, doesn't mean that you can't have already been living and working here for years (and paying taxes while doing so, so paying into Medicare and SS that you may never yourself use). Because we don't have a universal healthcare system in this country, people such as this may not have health insurance. In the UK and other developed countries, those you call "short-timers" still have access to healthcare.
8
@michjas
"Giving such assistance is tantamount to treating guests like family."
If we can afford a trillion and a half for the tax giveaway to the rich, hundreds of billions for the military, big bank bailouts, and corporate subsidies - I think we can easily afford a million or so in assistance to every non-green-card holder here illegally or not.
5
I have read the editorial but I am confused. If U.S.A is already denying green cards and visas to those who are likely to become public charges then why this new rule. The old rule itself covers them, isn’t it ? Editorial says briefly that both are different but it’s not clear.
I have an issue with the citizenship itself. America gives citizenship to all those people who are born there. There are plenty of complications involved here. If the parents are legal immigrants, they are there for a certain period. They may get green card or may not get it. In the event of not getting it, how can the child survive without parents ? If the parents decide to take the child along with them to their country, I don’t know what would be the child’s legal status in that country.
In the case of illegal immigrants, they have to leave America any day since they are on gas all the time. Here also once they are deported, the child, who is a citizen by birth her future becomes a question mark. As such I feel American citizenship should be given only to those children who are at least born to the green card holders since they stand chance of becoming citizens in due course.
15
@Sivaram Pochiraju
They weren't allowed to be "public charges", but that was defined very narrowly as getting actual cash payments from the government which ever since welfare reform in the 90's is really rare.
5