A hard-working, healthy immigrant might become unemployed temporarily, or his child might become ill or be injured in an accident. This does not make him a long term public charge. Furthermore, the proposed policies will do great harm to the totally innocent children of legal immigrants who struggle to make ends meet while working two minimum wage jobs. Without SNAP and other programs many children will go hungry, and their health can be damaged for life. If legal immigrant parents don’t get their children medical care out of fear, treatable illnesses will get worse.
If we can afford unnecessary trillion dollar tax cuts favoring the richest Americans, if we can afford a wasteful and misdirected military (over the top in nuclear, relatively weak in cyber and counterterrorism), we can afford to give food and medical care to legal immigrants’ children.
22
@Dr BaBa , the problem is the Democrats offer no credible alternative. At least on the issue of a wasteful and misdirected military.
Obama-Biden ran in 2008 as if they were going to be different from Bush-Cheney and end the wars and bring accountability. So what happened? They continued the wars their entire 8 years, ending their 2 terms as the longest wartime president & VP in US history. Expanded the intervention-first, "regime change" nonsense to other countries that also had nothing to do with 9/11, such as Syria, Libya, Ukraine and Yemen. Obama-Biden Pentagon green lighted the continuing absurdity of the budget-busting F-35 fighter jet, including the corrupt basing decisions pushed by Democrats and so-called "progressives" such as Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders. Yes, even Bernie prioritizes the F35, Lockheed's corporate welfare boondoggle, ahead of the health and home values of thousands upon thousands of his most vulnerable constituents, including the "diverse" demographics and immigrant refugees the Dems pretend to care about.
Tulsi Gabbard, the only Democratic candidate who runs on the issue of reining in the military-industrial-complex, is barely polling 1%. This independent who used to vote Democrat has had enough. If they lose to Trump again in 2020, that is on them and they unfortunately probably deserve to. Frankly, as far as I can tell, the Democrats don't care if they win or lose, so long as the intervene-everywhere/MIC gravy-train continues.
12
@GRH
No serious person can make a decision to vote for Trump because of one issue....immigration.
I am very upset that the Dems have not made a strong showing to improve and strengthen our laws and enforce the ones we have BUT I will NEVER vote for Trump.
There are too many areas being damaged by his policies - not to speak of the stain he is to the Presidency.
When he leaves office, it will need to be fumigated.
8
While we should welcome immigrants who wish to come to the US to work and better their lives, they should not become an immediate burden on taxpayers. Previous waves of immigrants had no safety net to support them. To offer free health care and other benefits to new arrivals when current citizens are struggling to make ends meet is wrong.
Give green cards to those who meet the needs of US employers - from engineers and educators to service and agriculture workers who do jobs that Americans just will not.
New arrivals should be ineligible for government benefits until they have become productive taxpayers. This is not a racist policy. Just common sense.
And I cannot wait to vote Donald Trump out of office.
39
where ignorance is bliss . . . Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for benefits.
11
@Robert Woods
So no illegal immigrants get any free health care in emergency rooms, food stamps, police and fire protection, public education, driver's licenses, etc? Let's not be naive.
7
@Robert Woods that is simply not true either. The first thing new arrivals (documented and undocumented) do is head to the “welfare” office. Those with minors are entitled to countless benefits and years of them. NYC is prime example of “everyone” living off of the system.
8
It is most unwise for courts to become involved in politics and that is what this litigation is about. It is easy for a court to say that non-citizens are entitled to "free stuff." The hard part is finding the money to pay for the "free stuff." The courts cannot do that, so far, at least. Let's hope that doesn't come next. Before the courts tell us we have to solve the problems of non-citizen's, maybe, they should tell us we have to solve the problems of our citizens first. The latter seems to be the policy the courts just threw away.
8
As Judge Daniels pointed out, these regulations are against the American Dream. We had these rules 100 years ago, but abandoned them. Are we less caring than our grandparents? I think not. Most people deemed a possible future public charge may never be one, but their progeny may be the best Americans we ever had, if only they are allowed to live and work here. We have many jobs going unfilled due to these Draconian rules. We need immigrants.
2
It is reasonable to expect immigrants generally to not be a drain financially.
But what do we do about immigrants who are truly fleeing from areas where their lives are in danger? Most of them obviously are not financially able to immediately support themselves.
It is a huge problem seemingly without a solution.
1
The irony and hypocrisy of this man who has been trying to take health insurance from our own citizens. So what will,he do when they don’t have health insurance any more? Deport them?
2
In other words, if a would-be immigrant can't afford to buy a condo from DJT, they can forget about coming to the USA. But there is an important exemption for fashion models.
2
I think Trump's cruelty toward the poor is pathetic, and I'm glad that judges are voting on the law and the merit. For one thing, Trump should not be able to steal money allocated by the Congress for the military to build a monument to hatred of poor Central Americans. If Trump gets elected again, those judges will somehow be replaced by loyal hacks who may not even have law degrees. If Trump gets elected again racists yahoos may get away with any cruelty towards brown, black, and poor people. Can people even distinguish among immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees, and the holders of green cards, who typically become American citizens after five years, and have worked and paid taxes typically for years? Even people without status, who are often underpaid, typically pay taxes. But sometimes people get sick or their children need to be vaccinated. It's in everyone's interest to stop scapegoating the poor and acting aggrieved towards people who need food stamps or health care. You may need help one day, and if the structures for providing that help are so degraded, you too may starve or die an unnecessary early death.
2
I researched current immigration laws last night, to verify if Trump's, Miller's and Homeland Security's new immigration measures were in accord with them. They are not.
The U.S. has a fairly generous and humane body of immigration law, that:
1) calls for rapid processing of immigration paperwork and a date before an immigration judge,
2) does not permit family separation but instead seeks to unite families,
3) provides work opportunity and a path to citizenship,
4) does provide an annual cap on incoming immigrants,
5) provides public services for the poor and sick.
The Constitution states that Congress creates immigration law, not the Executive Branch. Because Homeland Security is part of the Executive, not Legislative, branch, their new regulations are invalid.
So far, there have been no Congressional votes to change current immigration law, and have not been any since 2010.
Defying his own National Intelligence Director's 2019 "Worldwide Threat Assessment", Trump cited a national security threat at the Southern border, due to all those dangerous women and children fleeing horrendous situations in South America.
He did this so he could wrest control of immigration law from Congress. Everything he's done defies immigration and humanitarian law. His "imaginary" national security threat, and following orders, are invalid and illegal.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_laws
2
The rules regarding Medicaid use, public benefits and health insurance will also rule out immigrants who are disabled or have disabled family members. Australia, whose horrid immigration policies Trump seems to be aping, does this leading to regular occurances of immigrant families being forced out due to such 'crimes'as having a child with Down syndrome.
1
These legal blockades are all well and good, except that at least some will be appealed and land in the courtrooms of Trump-appointed federal judges. The question will then be: which are they first, Trump appointees or Americans?
There's the key sentence in this article:
“Ultimately, I predict these issues will go all the way to the Supreme Court.”
That would be the Supreme Court Mitch McConnell and the POTUS packed. Undoing this inhumane treatment of immigrants seeking asylum and a better life for their children--- the same rationale that drove those who came to America decades or centuries ago--- will require legislative action.
3
There is a difference between refugees (legitimate refugees vs. economic) and immigrants. Immigrants apply to come to the US and must be able to support themselves, including healthcare. The same holds true if one were to immigrate from the US to another country - you would not be allowed to enter if you could not support yourself. Period.
The only time healthcare should be free or subsidized is in the case of refugees. By definition, they have little as they are fleeing war.
5
Before we admit too many more people, let's count the immigrants who are already here illegally. So far, we have no real census, just best-guess about who's here. I've read numbers that estimate 11 million to 16 million. We can't count them. There is a simple solution, but it seems no one wants to implement it because it would involve self-deportation and getting in the line to come back.
Barbara Jordan's group had a solution to the visa overstays. "The commission was aware that even twenty years ago a large proportion of migrants illegally in the country had overstayed their visas. A border wall would do little to address that problem. Recognizing that most migrants entering without authorization or overstaying their visas did so for jobs, the commission recommended an electronic employment verification system and enhanced labor standards enforcement designed to sanction employers who knowingly hired and exploited undocumented workers."
We refuse to implement this simple way to see who's here legally. Until we have that headcount, we should be very circumspect about additional immigration.
5
People coming to become American citizens need to support themselves. When people came thru Ellis Island they had to be able to work and be healthy. Why should we accept people who want a free ride?
9
We have two separate and distinct legal systems in the U.S. We have Republican appointed judges and Democratic appointed judges. On each and every politically controversial issue, one can predict the ruling with about 95% accuracy simply knowing who appointed the judge. This is awesome as it allows forum shopping by lawyers to achieve their desired outcome. Litigation strategy becomes so much more simple, file the same case, maybe in multiple venues, withdraw any cases that end up with the wrong judge, and proceed with those in front of the correct judge. With nationwide rulings now standard, you just need one !! Awesome !!
3
How about we solve our own problems of homelessness, joblessness, downward mobility, poverty, poor health, crime, social divisiveness, and environmental mismanagement before opening the doors to an endless stream....and I do mean ENDLESS stream...of foreign nationals dependent upon the public services and welfare intended for our own citizenry.
Enough already! We, the people, are NOT obligated to offer up our country as a pressure release valve for the world’s impoverished, overpopulated billions. Our government’s mission and obligation is to serve the interests of American Citizens. So get to it.
29
@Susanna
And violate our country's values during more than two centuries of being a beacon of hope to millions all over the world?
When my grandparents came to this country in the early part of the 20th Century, they were able-bodied, but impoverished.
The new guidelines that are being rejected by the courts would have made their journey over 100 years ago impossible.
5
@Susanna
Would that after nearly 4 years the GOP-led administration has shown any will or desire to address any of these fundamental social issues-- rather than crafting legislation favoring real estate moguls. Furthermore, in addition to foreign nationals and recent citizens providing much needed elder care which is often grievously underfunded, the absence of immigration will undermine a tottering tax base.
3
@Susanna
Cruelty towards the poor and sick is our problem. And the stream isn't endless. We take many fewer refugees than Turkey or Europe. Moreover, many citizens today weren't citizens yesterday. Are you a Native American?
3
Clearly partisan rulings with no regard for existing law. Will be corrected by SCOTUS.
16
@Kumar: A PARTISAN SCOTUS.
Corrected? Riiiiight . . . .
1
Good thing Trump's parents were not immigrants. Oh, wait ...!
21
Trump’s parents supported themselves. They were not supports by American citizens
1
@kenneth Good thing Melania agrees with POTUS's attitude regarding chain migration - oh, wait!
3
In 2017, President Trump and the Republican Party tried to take off health care from million of American citizens. Now President Trump wants only immigrants with health care (See "Trump Will Deny Immigrant Visas to Those Who Can't Pay for Health Care", The NY Times, Oc. 4, 2019). Go figure!
11
"For a nation that has long welcomed immigrants from poor countries seeking to improve their lot, the new rule could drastically change the composition of newcomers" - But there were no social programs at that time.
"It is simply offensive to contend that English proficiency is a valid predictor of self-sufficiency." - Of course; who ever heard of the ridiculous requirement that immigrants speak the language of the country they move to.
"The history of our nation is inextricably tied to our immigrant communities." - Not at all. The history of our nation is tied to immigrant communities, but not inextricably. America had a high colonial fertility rate on its own which was augmented by later arrivals but surprisingly never surpassed by them, according to studies.
24
@Eugene
Perhaps the writer of this post would be better served sitting down for a bagel, croissant or slice of pizza and reflecting further.
2
Here is the key part of the article:
"[A]ll of Friday’s rulings came from judges appointed by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama."
How much does Bill Clinton wish he had kept his promise to African-American, Democratic Congresswoman and civil rights icon Barbara Jordan, when she led his Bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform? And supported her legislation and recommendations? Instead of, one month after her tragic death at a young age, selling her out for the illegal campaign cash from China, via John Huang? And the demands of the China lobby to kill chain migration reform.
But for those actions of Clinton and the DNC in 1996, destroying the last, best chance for bipartisan immigration reform, his wife would probably be president today.
14
The article focuses on the denial of health care to immigrants, which is entirely appropriate. But there is another health risk that is not mentioned: contagion. Under the proposed rules, immigrants who are carrying contagious diseases like measles and influenza will not be treated or vaccinated. These diseases are carried through the air so that ordinary citizens will be exposed to serious diseases merely by going into a shopping mall, a supermarket or even a crowded city street.
15
Or Americans will be exposed to contagious diseases by other Americans who no longer believe in vaccinations.
17
@Ron Ratney Actually, if the law were followed, immigrants that arrive sick are sent home. That's how it should be. The US is not responsible for everyone on the planet that seeks public assistance. Quite the contrary is true, and that is because citizens come first.
3
@Ron Ratney
Why is it appropriate to deny health care to immigrants? If you get sick in Germany do you expect to just bleed out in the street while folks walk around you?
1
So the Federal judiciary is chock full of Resistance Judges.
I wish you could see my shocked face.
24
@frankly0
No, the President has no respect for the Law. Judges simply apply the law. Trump ignores the law. Immigration law does not support his approach to immigration. Instead of pushing for immigration reform which would require major compromise on his part, he chooses to ignore the law. Judges are supposed to resist lawlessness.
22
@frankly
No.
Its not.
Like every other highly skilled profession, the actual humans are variegated.
The real chasms open when we so easily slap a label on a big trend or movement (omg ! The Resistance !)
The Independents who I know are offically done, (I was done a long time ago.)And that's just, well, a fact.
And I doubt they will swing back. (Actually, they wont)
Beware of high school grad Hannity (sorry).
He's not really an expert
Hes a very rich "newscaster".
8
@Dana Sorry, but you are wrong on this one. Being able to support yourself when you apply to immigrate has been a part of US law for decades. We're not talking refugees, we're talking immigrants. And every country on the planet requires you support yourself, even if only staying for a short time, like studying overseas. EVERY country on the planet. Where did some of those commenting go to school?! Is history no longer being taught?
3
I hope the stay on the public charge rule will be upheld by the Supreme Court.
There's little correlation between how much money someone makes and how much they contribute to society. Much necessary, difficult work is low-paid (farm labor, day care, elder care) or unpaid (caring for one's own small children or frail elders), and much unnecessary or even destructive work is very well-compensated.
Also, I thought we have social contracts because we know that all of us need help sometimes, and most os us are able to give help sometimes, and life works better when we help each other as we're able.
20
@Joanna Hoyt
Thank you for reminding us of the very fundamental fact that we’re all human beings trying to make it through the day. That simple fact often gets buried in all the chatter.
@Joanna Hoyt But It should NOT be mandated. Otherwise it becomes a slippery slope. Today we help poor refugees, tomorrow we are held responsible for their relatives, and on and on..
1
Unlike Canada, which admits most of its immigrants based on what special ability they could contribute to the Canadian economy, on their fluency in English and/or French, and on their overall ability to easily assimilate, the U.S. chooses most of its immigrants based on kinship alone.
U.S. residents, who petition the government to allow their adult kin to move here, must sign an affidavit promising to financially support their kin, once they have moved here, until the latter become citizens or are each credited with 40 quarters of work (which takes 10 or more years).
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service has a page titled “Affidavit of Support” which says the following:
"Form I-864, Affidavit of Support under Section 213A of the INA, is a contract an individual signs agreeing to use their financial resources to support the intending immigrant named on the affidavit."
"An affidavit of support is a legally enforceable contract, and the sponsor’s responsibility usually lasts until the family member or other individual either becomes a U.S. citizen, or is credited with 40 quarters of work (usually 10 years).”
The above makes me think that anyone who was awarded a green card based on an application by a relative, is supposed to be depending on that relative, not on the government, for any financial support he or she needs.
33
@ann You're right, but good luck on enforcing support by relatives. who are probably receiving public assistance.
4
@ann
What if they get cancer? Lose their job? Have been here five years and applied for citizenship? Have children?
Donald Trump has real contempt and personal distaste for people who are needy. The very idea of desperate, unwashed people entering his breathing space (unless he intends to exploit them for low paying jobs at his hotels and resorts) is abhorrent to him. He's not worried about an added burden on our social services, he 's worried about space being taken up by anybody who actually needs help.
17
Our neighbour Canada, a nation of immigration like the US, requires financial guarantees for family sponsorship. This makes sense. Their system has worked better for citizens and legal immigrants than ours has for decades. We have so much to learn!
"To become a sponsor, you must promise to financially take care of the persons you are sponsoring for a period of time. We call this promise an undertaking.
The undertaking commits you to:
- providing financial support for your sponsored family members for 20 years, starting when they become permanent residents
- repaying any provincial social assistance (money from the government) your sponsored family members get during that time
You can’t sponsor your parents and grandparents if:
- your proof of income shows you don’t have enough money to support the persons you want to sponsor"
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/family-sponsorship/sponsor-parents-grandparents/eligibility.html
38
@Marcia Berg
in the U.S. you also have to provide proof that you can support the relatives that you are trying to sponsor.
11
@Marcia Berg , Trump has been trying to move the United States to a system like Canada, including fully supporting the Cotton-Perdue "RAISE" Act during his first two years. Not a single Democrat was willing to cross the aisle to support the RAISE Act and make the US more like Canada, even though Senators Cotton and Perdue based the proposed legislation on all of the recommendations of President Clinton's own Bipartisan Commission on Immigration Reform, led by African-American, Democratic Congresswoman and civil rights icon Barbara Jordan.
With their intransigence and refusal to reform immigration, even based on what Barbara Jordan suggested and to make the US more like Canada, Democratic Party seems determined to lose to Trump again in 2020.
15
@GRH
Apparently the director of the Jordan commission disagrees with your characterization.
See http://doi.org/10.14240/cmsesy020518
1
It’s this kind of obstructionism....cheerleading on behalf of foreign nationals at the expense of our citizenry... that will induce my family....Democrats all...to vote the other side come 2020.
Thanks, Dems.
34
You would never have voted for a Democrat in any case. No loss.
4
@Robert Woods
And you know this how?
15
@Susanna I would guess that he understands that someone who would vote for 45 again and, therefore is willing to - accept the devastation of our environment, the destruction of our educational system, the attempted destruction of our medical and pharmaceutical system, the complete ignoring of infrastructure needs, the horror of our tax system through which this administration is starving all but the top 1% of the populace, the destruction of thousand of small farms, and more - is not going to vote Republican just because they don't like the immigration policy.
1
I would rejoice but I know that a lot of trump’s legally failed policies have failed because they are either poorly written or thought out. A more competent racist president would have gotten away with it. I fear the republicans are learning that they need to find a more competent racist dictator to run for president.
6
@Paulie But they will probably have trouble finding one who can win.
2
@Bob R
We must vote and continue to hope that there is never a repetition of the current abomination in the White House.
3
Pretty hypocritical to deny green cards to people who can't prove they will be able to afford our healthcare system:
1. Outcomes are not as good as much of the rest of the world in spite of extreme costs in comparison to other countries.
2. We don't even care enough about our own citizens to ensure every child - much less every person - has medical access that won't financially destroy a family.
12
What kind of terrible decision is this - how can the judge state that English language proficiency has no bearing on the ability to support oneself ? Or some such similar nonsense.
I’m shocked that D nominated judges would contort themselves instead of following the plain laws allowing the President to restrict immigration.
28
A good portion of what he is doing is illegal, including his disregard for court orders. He has little regard for the rule of law or the Constitution.
8
This is the way our Constitution is supposed to work.
6
Trump's bashing of Somalis highlights his twisted racial bias. He just put hundreds, if not thousands of Somali refugee lives at risk. Impeachment can't come fast enough. These actions are not allowed in enlightened western democracies, yet somehow the are are left unchecked in the United States of America.
6
This is the second time this week the so-called-president's legal theories have been called "repugnant."
How fitting.
6
This and all policies of the man not so well upstairs are just hatred towards "non pure white" human beings.
5
Black Friday comes early for Trump
3
Japan has long had rules like this. But the result has been the graying of society and labor shortages in many industries. Recently the rules have had to be loosened.
3
@Bruce Thomson No, Japan has taken careful steps to avoid the immigration problems of the US, Germany, and other countries. " 'It would be a disaster if we ended up with the same problems as the U.S. and Europe because we don’t have a proper immigration policy,' Yuichiro Tamaki, the leader of opposition Democratic Party for the People, said late last year.... [Japan does not want] the populist backlash that has turned immigration into a divisive issue in the U.S., Germany, Italy, the U.K." - https://www.wsj.com/articles/japans-immigration-experimentcan-it-let-people-in-without-stirring-backlash-11568213741
12
After all the bravado, the bragging and threats, the mismanagement, the rampant corruption, the insults, defiance of constitutional law; assaults against the environment, against immigrants, against innocent children, against the will of the majority of Americans, there has been one thing that has prevented Trump & Comp from unfettered destruction of the country: The Courts. Thank God.
5
This is about destroying Family Reunification laws, in a Country without universal health care, which is paid via universal contributions, by the way.. in many South American Countries American retirees get very affordable and good health insurance just for being integrated in national programs, one example, Ecuador. The problem and the motivation here is that the immigrants now are not German...This whole "problem" is just racism.
6
Riiiiggghhhtt. Because we want people to come here so we can work harder and pay more taxes to support them.
And y'all wonder why people vote for Trump?!
26
@Kathleen880 Under trump your taxes are being funneled to billionaires. Poor people aren't human and don't count and it's us vs. them right? They're the enemy.
So which of these 3 categories are you: 1. an immigrant. 2. A descendant from immigrants. Or 3. A Native American.?
6
@Paul Kiefer Even the Native Americans originally came from somewhere else...I never understand why any descendant of immigrants would be anti-immigrant. Could it have something to do with skin color?
1
I recently toured Ellis Island where I learned that immigrants who applied for any kind of public aid were deported. It is common today for people to think that every migrant who arrived at Ellis Island was admitted, but this could not be further from the truth. Once migrants disembarked from their boats, they entered a building where immigration agents watched them carry their luggage up to the 2nd floor. Anyone who appeared tired, disoriented, mentally or physically handicapped, or sick had their coat marked with chalk, and had to appear for a mental health and medical check-up. Those who were sick were put in a hospital, on the island. Anyone who could not recover from their illness was sent back to Europe, along with those deemed mentally deficient.
The boat that brought the sick migrants had to pay for their stay in the hospital. It also had to absorb the cost of transporting every migrant who was rejected back to Europe. For this reason, ships tried to carefully screened those whom they brought here. None-the-less, many migrants who made the voyage were rejected as unfit.
In addition, if a migrant was admitted and later found to have applied for public assistance, he or she was then deported.
Trump’s orders were in keeping with the ones used at Ellis Island which were to not to admit anyone who could become a burden on society.
33
"Friday’s rulings all came from judges appointed by Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama."
Very strong evidence of "forum shopping" by the pro-open-borders crowd.
"Forum shopping" needs to be stamped out.
The Supreme Court needs to stamp out the practice by firmly promptly and unequivocably nixing the decisions of lower court judges that entertain these lawsuits.
32
@sam finn Another person who doesn't understand our constitutional system.
5
In the America of Donald Trump, money trumps character, asylum, family, and well, everything, unless it is a favor he can cash in on.
4
Imagine a world where a poor person isn't allowed to move to anyplace unless they have an organ to give. That is where we are heading with Mr. Trump's dystopian policies.
3
How much is it to immigrate to Canada? Or Germany? Is it $250,000 in the bank and a job already?
11
@Lily...Canada requires you to demonstrate you have the funds/income to live at least 1 year without public assistance and they are in the process of revising this (more strictly) along with other requirements, now.
I have dual citizenship in an EU country. Very strict regulations re: language proficiency, education/skills/employment/income/assets. It took me 18 months and almost $1000 just to get a DL! after I had legal citizenship! My EU country also has thousands of U.S. citizens who meet their criteria but are on a waiting list, possibly forever, because the country restricts the number of immigrants it accepts every year. As is the right of every sovereign country.
This is common sense, nothing more. And I am no Trump fan.
31
My observation after spending decades on the planet is that people who are willing to get up and move to improve their lot are more likely to work than some who are born in one place that where they stay and complain about the factory or mine closing. A person who walks a thousand miles with their kids to get to a safer and healthier future for them is not coming here to sit in the shade. They are coming here to improve their lives and they are not afraid of hard work.
11
@Joe Barnett
Not to be unkind but they do not improve their lives when they have too many kids to support and thus possibly create the necessity to move.
Such poor decision making skills likely will not enhance their chances in this Country.
3
My daughter studied abroad in Belgium. As her guarantor I had to provide notarized agreement to pay any expenses she may incur, three months of bank statements, two years of tax returns, a statement from my employer, and pay for her Belgian health insurance for her to get a visa for 5 months.
57
@Dori Just like I did for my daughter's apartment in New York (except for the health care). Welcome to the New World.
5
@David, correct. The real world requires non citizens to have proof of sustainability.
13
@Dori for crying out loud, equating financial sustainability as a requirement for a refugee from violence or climate change devastation - both of which can be blamed on US policy over decades if not centuries - with required financial support for your daughter’s choice to pursue education in a foreign country is just willful disregard for the issues involved ( or just plain stupidity).
3
However when decisions are made in far off consulates they can still deny a visa to some one in their likely to be a public charge,
All the judge did was eliminate certain criterias, but the public charge law is till on the books and has been on the books for decades.
Consular officials can still deny visa, and I don;t believe that they had to tell the applicant the reason for a denial.
6
Democrats should be careful, as policies like these are pretty common sense. It certainly depends on the details, but broadly railing against all attempts to mitigate unwanted consequences of migration will only feed the "open borders" narrative. The rise of the European far-right is mostly a reaction to immigration policies percieved as too compassionate. It should be a warning.
50
@Andre Agree. I cannot go to a country of my choice and be 'taken care of' by the country (i.e. citizens of that country). I really believe that the open borders push by the far left wing (quickly becoming most) of the Dem party is why Trump is in office today. And Merkle's decision to open Europe's borders created the far right's recent successes, along with dividing the citizens. That's what Brexit was all about too. Why can't leaders today respond to the will of citizens vs. some global initiative that is driven by a few wealthy individuals who've identified as the planets compass.
1
I'm not sure why this issue is coming up now. I became a legal immigrant 2 decades ago and had to sign a form that required that I don't become a public charge anytime over the first 10 years of myvstay in the US. This policy has been around for a long while.
60
I think that Trump, and Republicans to the extent which they are backing him up, want to turn the clock back to before 1930, and erase even the gains made by the New Deal. They're shooting holes in Food Stamps, and getting get rid of protection of consumers by ripping apart regulations governing business. The Libertarians among them would dump Medicare, Social Security and unemployment insurance. Here, Trump wants to undo the 1965 Immigration Act, which got rid of the racist policies which had preceded it since the 1924 Immigration Act.
Between 1924 and 1965, Asian immigrants were excluded from the U.S., and immigration from other nations was limited to 2 percent of the US population, as determined by the 1890 census. Since people from more prosperous Northern Europe had been first to immigrate, there were the most of their descendants in the US in 1890, so the quotas allotted to immigrants from those areas were huge (and never filled). But because immigrants from poorer Southern and Eastern Europe had only begun to immigrate to the US in the later part of the 19th century, there were relatively few of them already in the U.S., so that the annual quotas allotted to them were tiny -- often only 100 people per year.
Now Trump wants to set up this same sort of disparity between richer immigrants and poorer ones. It will inevitably lead to racial discrimination. We are indeed lucky that there are still a few judges left in the U.S. willing to take him on!
8
Canada already does something similar. Where is the outcry that they are being unfair? They restrict immigrants who would be a burden to their healthcare system as well as those who would not contribute enough to their economy. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a non refugee immigrant to show they can provide the basics for themselves and their family, if they’re applying together, without subsidies or taxpayer funded assistance.
47
@Bridget " They restrict immigrants who would be a burden to their healthcare system "
But we have no healthcare system.
2
@Bob R
We have medicaid and aca subsidized insurance policies. The article refers to both.
10
Is one of the conditions to be admitted to the USA is being able to pay a membership fee at Mar a Lago ?
12
@Welcome Canada
No, no.
That's coming next.
4
"an immigration process that Mr. Trump has criticized because it favors people who already have family in the United States over those admitted based on their ability to contribute to the economy"
.............. like, for instance, Melania's parents?
10
@Timothy Samara
They are not public leeches. They have family support and are not looking to go on the dole.
They are not uncle Omar and auntie zatoonie who leeched off the public in Boston, MA public housing (later) and was a drunk driver here illegally (former).
14
Hopefully a moot question now, but ai wondered if Trump’s own ancestors or Melania herself would have been allowed into the US if these rules had been in place.
9
When problems (real or imaginary) arise for both individuals and groups of people, there are 3 basic types of reaction. The most effective one of course, is also the least common: a level-headed, objective analysis of what went wrong, the history of the problem, the problem's importance and priority levels, etc.... extensive, unbiased fact gathering followed by rigorous logic and an openness to all possible methods of improving the situation - preferably combined with compassion and an attitude that all humans are fundamentally equal on a basic level...... sigh: almost nobody especially politicians and large crowds, take this kind of approach to virtually anything!! The other two ways of reaction to perceived problems are "Fight" or "Flight" - the later involves internalizing the problem, blaming one's self fof all or most of it, and trying to solve or normalize things through penance, contrition and changes in one's own thoughts, attitudes and actions. When this kind of withdrawal takes an extreme form, it turns into depression and self-harm. The "Fight" option involves placing most of the blame on others, or other forces and agencies outside the Self - and determining to oppose these externalities as best as one can. When taken to the extreme, this approach can turn into fear, paranoia, anger and abandonment or gross distortion of reason and logic... Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Trump, Pol Pot, Thatcher, Reagan, Bush II, Malcom X - result: suffering and often disaster.
2
Maybe the House should add not speaking good Standard English to the impeachment charges.
12
Why not?
His family got in...now it's time to close the doors.
3
Don’t miss this article, relevant because it is about a penniless immigrant who depended on a homeless shelter and became a successful entrepreneur:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/nyregion/homeless-murders-nyc-hakki-akdeniz.html?
If there were only 1000 of him to every one Trump and Stephen Miller.
8
@Kally
The exception proves the rule. One superstar does not mean the entire lot is good.
Look at Mike Trout and the Angles of Anaheim.
13
@stan
Sure, we could do this for days, nevertheless, most immigrants are law abiding and extremely hard working with the objective of making life better for their children. Don’t you know any people like this in your community?
The fact that over a million illegal immigrants breached our border in the past year should definitely influence how many more economically-challenged immigrants we should allow into the US.
Our immigration policy should also take into account the fact that an estimated 15-20,000,000 illegals currently already in our country.
PS. The US has provided haven for more immigrants than any other nation.*
*https://citizenpath.com/countries-with-the-most-immigrants/
34
They must prove that they have health insurance or can pay for healthcare out of pocket at a time when the Trump administration is doing all it can to deprive citizens of health insurance. Sheesh!
17
GOOD! Legal immigration should not grant privilege to rich people. We have enough billionaire crooks and immigrant despots already living in Trump Tower for several lifetimes.
28
This is good news.
8
Of course, the Public Charge rule is undemocratic and discriminatory. The judge was correct in block this unconstitutional effort by an inept, immoral, unintelligent lawless president who seeks to rule in an autocratic manner.
11
@Christina
It is supposed to discriminate against people who are here to drain the treasury that us taxpayers stock.
16
@Christina
Public charge rules don't have to be democratic or anything else. It is what the country and its citizens believe appropriate.
20
Steven Miller must be throwing a tantrum while Trump fumes explosively around the White House. It really is something the faith that their base has put behind this level of incompetence.
19
This will not an election win
17
I find it odd that this article does not describe the legal reasoning underpinning the judge's decision. From this reporting, it sounds like the judge had plenty of reason to think it a bad policy on the merits, but didn't he need to also provide some reason why it was unlawful? What was that reason?
23
If discrimination based on wealth isn’t illegal, it certainly should be,
4
@Noelle
This was my thought as I read the article. It seemed like a personal opinion instead of the law. ...and what that law means can always be expanded and updated as policies Are improved for citizens.
For instance, earned income credit. Should that be a benefit that should be included as part of the public charge criteria?
So the point is there are many things to evaluate and the fact is that the way it has been handled in the past was to pretty much to just include cash
benefits. Does anyone believe subsidized housing is not cash?
There are many examples like this and politicians and advocates bat em back and forth in their endless war on reality and common sense.
In some changes made during the Clinton years, public charge rules were supposed to be enforced but it never happened.
I am glad some efforts are being applied that are long overdue.
Though I think djt is a disaster, he is not wrong on this. ...and I fault Dems for their absolutely "deer in the headlights" position that is just providing fuel to voters teetering on the fence. I am not one of them and I urge everyone to reflect and do not let one issue decide your vote.
14
The story says a heavily weighted positive factor will be an income of $53,000 for a family of 3.
By what definition does that possibly qualify as wealthy?
11
@Talbot As defined by the 183 million people whose income cannot match your own.
5
The point of the change in regulations was to spread fear among immigrants. And in that regard, it succeeded.
9
Not one of my 4 grandparents (long deceased) would have been permitted to come to America under Trump's mean-spirited plan.
They came and contributed including children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who have included a world famous dancer, an educational leader and author, three college professors with multiple patents, a teacher/therapist, a national leader in services for homeless youth, an 8 year-old who will change the world, a 19 year old who is already changing the world, and the most beautiful 4 year old boy on the planet.
77
@Eileen Eulick
But not all kids do what has been described here....that’s the point.
8
@Eileen Eulick It's pretty fun though even if it doesn't take unique talent!
2
@Barking Doggerel
The point is that when your ancestors (and mine ) came decades ago, when America needed low skill laborers, which is not the case today.
13
It is when judges are determining policy for more political reasons is why the results of last Presidential Election was only shocking to Democrats...
29
@MDCooks8 The election results of 2016 were shocking to Democrats because a judge ruled against immigration policies in 2019?
Care to explain? Or try?
2
@kenneth
It’s simple Ds are out of touch with most Americans or at least an electoral college majority.
It’s bleeding heart liberals who live on the coast who don’t understand that simple point.
11
@MDCooks8 Everybody seems to forget that in 2016, Hillary Clinton got almost three million more votes than Donald Trump. It is only because he and his henchmen knew how to play the Electoral College card that we are stuck with a minority President.
2
Here we go again.
Another lone lower court judge with a nationwide edict.
Time for the Supreme Court is rein in this practice.
37
@sam finn Yeah. They're always ruling against the Don. Time to rein in that practice.
2
A victory against the forces of meanness.
28
@Bob
The law should not be gauged by its subjective degree of ‘meanness’, what is this kindergarten?
16
Donald J. Trump is having a bad day.
The Marie Yovanovitch testimony.
Trump’s financial information needs to be disclosed.
Trump’s Green card policy is to be unblocked.
One more Giuliani pal detained.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
51
@MIMA Let's keep this ball rolling.....
5
Trump's deep deep lack of integrity is on display for all to see.
9