"our government forces immigrants to choose between a green card and feeding their children."
Prof. Ramirez sort o proves the point of a wealth test. If immigrant need taxpayer funds to survive then why would a country want them? America needs the best and brightest not the poorest and neediest. And if these "immigrants" are illegal they cannot plead poverty after paying coyotes thousands of dollars each to be smuggled in illegally. Compassion is one thing, stupidity is another.
24
The fact of the matter is that all previous waves of immigration experienced monstrously inhumane treatment at the hands of the entrenched, in the name of "protecting our resources". I'm sure many of the pro-exclusion commenters on this board watched with sadness last year's PBS special on the Chinese Exclusion Acts of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. This is no different, and will be seen for what it is, the ugly side of human tendencies to shun the other and hoard resources.
5
We need to stop with the myth that immigrants do jobs that Americans won't do. The NYT did this story within the last few months showing it just ain't so, even in a lousy poultry-processing plant, reporting on an immigration raid that busted 700 illegal immigrants at one plant.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/us/mississippi-ice-raids-poultry-plants.html
"The raids were believed to be the largest statewide immigration crackdown in recent history and a partial fulfillment of President Trump’s vow to remove millions of undocumented workers from the country. The impact on Mississippi’s immigrant community has been devastating. For nonimmigrant workers, the aftermath has forced them into a personal reckoning with questions of morality and economic self-interest: The raids brought suffering, but they also created job openings."
17
“There’s a persistent myth that “foreigners” simply want to steal Americans’ jobs, have babies on American soil and go on welfare”. <— I mean, immigrants ( like most Americans) _do_ want (a) jobs, (b) to have babies, and (c) if they fall on hard times, to receive governmental assistance. So it’s not a myth, but it also doesn’t make immigrants especially nefarious.... The real question is whether we want to introduce new folks - and if so, how many - to compete with current American citizens for the above.
7
So much for the Land of Opportunity.
4
It seems simple enough. Why would American citizens wish to allow into their country millions of people who they, the citizens, would probably have to support by decreasing their own wealth?
Suppose two people ask to live in your house. The first demonstrates he is gainfully employed, self-supporting and willing to contribute to the upkeep of your home. The second, you discover, is unemployed, lives on hand-outs and will likely use your house but not contribute to its upkeep. Now. . . . which tenant would YOU prefer?
These immigration requirements do not say that one person is morally better than another. Only that he has the means to support himself. We vet mortgage applications, college educations, car loans, etc., so why not immigrants?
51
Except for the Norwegians, of course, this policy is deeply racist and deeply unAmerican.
No Irish need apply, of course.
6
The immigration system needs to function for the benefit of and in the interests of the American people. It is in no way racist, uncharitable, or deplorable to seek to attract productive, educated, skilled people who will enrich this society, not be a burden on it. Looking backward with nostalgia to a time when we needed lots of unskilled labor, wages and living standards were lower, and most forms of social welfare simply did not exist makes no sense in a society where native unskilled people are finding it harder and harder to get by. I endorse demanding that immigrants be self supporting and contributing members of society.
19
UnAmerican? I believe the US Supreme Court just ruled in favor of this (Trump's) action. We need to be very, very careful when disparaging (i.e., Justice Sontomayor's dissent that the majority of the Court are Trump's minions...my word) US Supreme Court decisions, as such criticism is likely to further weaken public belief and trust in our institutions. We do not need to throw fuel on that fire. Lastly, I believe a wealth test and even limiting immigration is reasonable. Today, 2020, should not be compared to 1820 or 1890 or any other period during which large numbers of poor/destitute and uneducated immigrants were allowed into the country. The needs (manpower, population growth) of our nation are much different and demand a different approach to immigration.
16
No, there should not be a "wealth test". But that is a mischaracterization. We don't need more impoverished illegal immigrants and we don't need millionaires who believe they can buy their way into this country. We don't need more people, period unless they can contribute the work skills in short supply among our citizens.
American citizenship is, should be and must remain priceless.
10
I hate to break it to Ms Ramirez, but the "wealth test," i.e., the demonstration that an immigrant is "self-sufficient, i.e., [does] not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities, as well as the resources of family members, sponsors, and private organizations” has long been used in Europe for Americans who seek visas to live, for instance, in Italy as I do. It's a reasonable precaution by a prudent nation to ensure that its resources go first and above all to its citizens, rather than an outsider and newcomer. I saw nothing objectionable about it when the Italians asked for proof of my ability to support myself, and I see nothing objectionable about this change in American immigrations procedures either.
17
I don't have a problem with the public charge proposal, provided that we have a solid process for asylum seekers that excludes them from the public charge rule during the process and IF they are granted asylum. The next time we need millions of unskilled workers, we can relax the public charge policy and let more people in, but letting them in now just results in a not so underground low wage labor pool which is unfair to the workers AND unfair to tax payers.
7
The ONLY issue I agree with conservatives on is immigration. We cannot continue let anyone and everyone into our nation.This has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism... it has everything to do with common sense. We need to do what every other advanced nation in the world does and limit the number of third-world dependent, unskilled people. We need to go after employers and landlords who house and employee these people. We simply do not have the ecology or economy to take in an unlimited number of the world's immigrants. I would rather be too stringent on immigration and asylum than too lax. Thrid world nations need to find equilibrium as first world nations have. Let's help these people in their country of origin rather than continuing these unsustainable immigration polices. Democrats are way off base on this issue.
24
I would support this policy if it were implemented in a rational way. The "public charge" test should be made when the immigrant applies for a visa, before they enter the US.
Allowing legal immigrants into this country, letting them apply and receive public aid, and then punishing them by denying a green card is illogical, expensive, and, ultimately, more cruel than simply denying the visa in the first place. It is particularly cruel to the immigrant who suffers a severe setback while on US soil - hit by a drunk driver, shot by a spree killer, or crippled by a workplace injury.
I believe that this policy is not motivated by a genuine concern for fiscal responsibility, but to blow a dog whistle towards right wing voters who dislike all social programs and are up in arms about illegal immigration.
1
With over 330 MILLION people we are full unless you like more traffic, congestion, etc.
19
Reading these comments one can measure the vast distance from Reagan to the modern Republican party. Immigrants are an asset to the country even if they come without a dime. They do work others won't do, but because federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour they might need help from time to time to get housing or deal with a bout of appendicitis. When did such a rich country, which depends on immigrant workers to support us in our old age, become so hostile to the idea of poor immigrants coming to America? Under Trump, the ethno-nationalist leader of the Republican party, the basic values of America are disappearing, including the idea that anyone can come to America and become an American. Listen to this the last speech of Ronald Reagan and you will hear how far we have fallen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R8QxCD6ir8
4
I regret that the Trump family was not rejected for immigration as they should have been. That would have saved this nation massive chaos, dysfunction and treason at the highest levels of incompetent governance.
Trump has no shared history of anything, no compassion and no concept of the tenets upon which this nation was founded. All he cares about is money - which means that he will make it easier for wealthy foreign criminals who will degrade this country to become permanent residents and citizens - like him. This is not what we either want or need - more money laundering, criminal bribery and descent into an even worse banana republic.
Don't you see the unquestionable pattern yet? An Oligarchy like Putin's with Trump in charge on this continent and Putin controlling the whole shebang.
4
I see no reason we shouldn't have a wealth test for those seeking permanent residency. There's a wealth test for foreigners seeking permanent residency in Mexico. According to their immigration office, an applicant for Permanent Resident Visa must demonstrate one of the following;
- Proof of investment or bank accounts with an average monthly overall balance equivalent to US$107,000 (12 months), or
- Proof of monthly income from pensions, bank accounts in the amount of at least US$1,620 (6 months).
https://residencies.io/residency/mexico/permanent-residency/MX4
15
Most of the commenters who are so upset about this piece did not read the word above the title: "Opinion".
Get a grip, people. This isn't Fox - the news and the opinions are clearly marked.
For that matter, all my grandparents were immigrants, and I married an immigrant. In less than one generation, all were succeeding, and in two, there were a couple of genuine rich people.
Think it is different now? Elon Musk is an immigrant. The founders of WhatsApp and Google are immigrants. There is even a list of billionaire immigrants - some of whom would never have been permitted to enter this country. Jan Kroum, founder of WhatsApp, for one, swept floors to make ends meet.
In the zeal to protect us from the invasion, we are keeping out the future.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreanavarro/2014/03/19/billionaire-immigrants-who-struck-it-rich-in-the-u-s/#36300b7764a7
1
Australia and Canada both use a point-based system and require English profiecency
18
Whole communities of poor immigrants, mostly undocumented, financially dependent on government services, live in SoCal. And there is constant gang activity, crime and spousal abuse. Not a pretty picture.
19
More Trumpism white supremacy at work. The US is based on diversity and the GOP is attempting to rip diversity out by the roots. Not a good plan. The world is starting to view the US in a different light which is a denigration of of our history. We must get back to “exceptualism”. That is who we are.
3
Let's do what Canada and Denmark do. Oh. This is what they do?
15
Good grief! the commenters are all het up over this public charge rule and they have rushed to support it in droves.
The problem is these rules are not objective, but subjective. Here's more:
"Thanks to what it calls the “public charge” rule, immigration officials are permitted to deny green cards (among other visas) if they suspect that the applicant might use government benefits someday — “at any time in the future.” Exactly what this means, or how one might make such a prediction, is frustratingly vague.
The Trump administration admits as much: As it acknowledges in its rule, divining whether a person might, say, apply for food stamps or Medicaid in 30 years is “inherently subjective in nature.”
Immigration officials have wide discretion when making these “inherently subjective” forecasts. The rule, however, includes factors that officials are supposed to consider when assessing the “totality of the circumstances presented in an applicant’s case”: current earnings, credit score, age, education and so on."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trump-administrations-green-card-catch-22/2020/02/20/a9175bfa-5426-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html
Do we have a rules based society or one where some officials can deny a green card just because they can?
3
If trump had any intention of helping anyone making less than $1,000,000 a year he would raise the minimum wage so fewer people would need public assistance in the first place.
If Americans (citizens, non-citizens, legal or illegal) are making plenty of money...why is the need for assistance still so high? Then there is the misguided requirement that you must work so many hours to get food stamps. All that has done is WV is increased the number of people showing up at food pantries asking for help. Just because you insist people have to have jobs does not mean there is suddenly going to be more jobs.
The whole problem with right wing "values" is they see everyone as lazy, stupid and evil. This is from the party of "Christians".
2
Professor Ramírez' position is absurd.
My wife's family came on the ship after the Mayflower. They didn't receive government benefits -- except for help from the Native Americans which prevented them from starving to death. But the Native Americans didn't have a formal government, so that doesn't count.
And we know full well that all of the people who came afterwards came with checkbooks and charge cards that insured that they could pay there way.
None of the earlier immigrants were poor. That is why, upon arriving in New York, they checked into the top hotels such as the Waldorf as soon as their steamer trunks arrived.
Has anyone any doubt about what I say? Fake News!
3
This would have stopped Mitt Romney's family and prevented his own father from being a governor. There's a Youtube of his mother talking about how they had to be on welfare when they arrived from Mexico. Given the incumbent's hiring and marrying practices, his immigration policy is the absolute height of hypocrisy.
1
"There’s a persistent myth that 'foreigners' ... go on welfare."
Is this really a "misguided belief," as the author states? Actually no. The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) cited the Census Bureau’s pooled 2014-16 American Community Survey (ACS) to show the following:
* 29% of noncitizens reported receiving at least one of the four means-tested benefits (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), SSI, SNAP, and Medicaid) that now will be considered in a public-charge determination.
* 47% live in a family in which one or more members receive such benefits.
* More than 10.3 million noncitizen adults and children live in families in which at least one person receives either cash or noncash benefits.
* When their U.S.-citizen family members—including 7.6 million children and 4.7 million adults—are counted, the number rises to 22.7 million.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/chilling-effects-us-public-charge-rule-commentary
11
My Italian grandparents came here to escape Mussolini. They brought some money with them and were able to open a corner grocery store. They established themselves and allowed people to buy on credit. Everyone paid them back. They were able to buy a large home, have 7 productive children an donated much to this country. Immigrants made this country what it is. We cannot close out hearts, our minds, our doors to people who need us. We are not that cruel. At least I hope we aren't. Women are not having as many children now. The populace must be replenished.
What absolute garbage. My mom's family came in the 1920s. They needed sponsors who promised to help them. But in the 20s there was no Migrant Assistance Industrial Sector, like today, with millions who make millions "assisting" migrants. There are programs today that did not exist in the 1920s. So I am 100% in agreement with Trump. ANYONE who gets a single penny should not qualify for the GC.
16
Immigration (legal/illegal) in the US during the past 30 or 40 years has led to human overpopulation. People who are pro-immigration are anti-environment. Intolerable traffic, loss of wildlife habitat, overcrowded ER's and classrooms, more killing in barbaric slaughterhouses, more factory farms, billions in welfare benefits to legals/illegals paid by American taxpayers. It is unsustainable. When is our government going to eliminate birthright citizenship and family reunification/chain migration? Never?? I will vote for Trump because of his stance on immigration but he has to get tougher. Close the doors to all immigration until US population is reduced and everyone is assimilated.
12
We've had a huge influx of uneducated, unskilled workers from Central America. I see nothing wrong with adding some more financially well off, educated immigrants. And why not some more from other parts of the world instead of south of the border. We have enough.
11
The disconnect between the ultra-liberal readers of the NYT and NYT, on matters of illegal immigration, couldn't be more profound.
I hope someone in the editorial office is reading these and relaying them to our Democratic candidates...
14
Your lead by declaring that "foreigners” going on welfare is a "persistent myth."
Then you turn around being upset that the government is denying green card to illegal immigrants who are on “public charge.”
If it is a myth, then it should not affect illegal immigrants because according to you they are not on welfare.
Why are you upset?
12
Immigration is fine in limited numbers and illegal immigration is a travesty! Canada is not a wimp when it comes to immigration! Canada uses a point system!
12
There must be a link to this article on some rightwing extremist website like Brietbart based on the anti-immigration comments flooding in.
A latino associate professor of Latin American and Latino Studies at the University of California wants more poor people from south of the border. Surprise!
18
Forbes magazine. “Trump’s Golf Trips Could Cost Taxpayers Over $340 Million”
Keep this in mind.
This policy has nothing to do w costs associated w immigrants.
It has to do w keeping Hispanic people out of the country. It’s a straight line from A to B.
And how about $340M for golf. No problem with that ?
21
@Sam I agree about the insanity of a president using $340 million to-date on frivolous golf outings. But I disagree that it has anything to do with immigration. We are the only advanced nation in the world allowing unchecked immigration. It is unsustainable. We need to end both -- the presidential golf trips AND unchecked immigration. It's not an "either-or" issue.
6
@Sam
Now there's one immigrant family we would be better off without. All the Trumps, massive takers rather than givers.
Remember, Trump even got money from the 9/11 funds though his buildings were unaffected. He's the king of bankruptcy. He blames the people he takes money from for his greedy heartlessness.
8
"Indeed, those who say their ancestors didn’t get government help as newly arrived immigrants would have to admit that their ancestors also never enjoyed the government benefits, like Medicare and Social Security, that now make these critics comfortable."
I really struggle with the above statement by the author. By the time my ancestors collected Medicare and Social Security, they had paid federal and state taxes and served in the US military. In fact anyone who collects Social Security has paid into the system, or had a spouse or partner who has. And Medicare wasn't even established until 1965! It's not like the Pilgrims, or even those who arrived to Ellis Island, were benefitting from SNAP and CHIP.
The author finds it cruel that the Trump administration (which I do not support, for what it's worth) would restrict US government entitlements to recently arrived immigrants. Perhaps she doesn't know how restrictive the US government is to sharing those benefits with its own native-born citizens? My father is in his 90s and receives Medicaid now for part of his nursing home cost, after having served in World War 2 and having an uninteruppted work history of over 60 years. He worked and payed taxes for that benefit, and we had to jump through a lot of hoops as a family (1,800 pages of documentation going back five years) before his Medicaid was even approved.
14
Fantastic op-ed piece, Cat! So thrilled to see your work here. Thank you!!
If you work long enough and live long enough, you will become a public charge, regardless of whether your ancestors came on the Mayflower or crossed the border somewhere in the desert or the Canadian Rockies last week. It’s called Social Security and Medicare.
@Lawyermom I don’t know about you but I have been paying into Social Security and Medicare since I started working. Those are benefits I earned.
11
@Bookworm8571 And so do documented immigrants and everyone who becomes an American citizen by birth in the US, regardless of parentage.
We should use "Moneyball" techniques to pick the best immigrants out of the 7 billion non-American, the talented few whose presence will most benefit existing Americans the way that sports teams carefully draft young athletes.
Instead, the conventional wisdom, as expressed in Professor Ramirez's oped, is that immigration sentimental ancestor worship.
5
People commenting here are assuming that immigrants need welfare benefits, but the facts are that they don’t. That’s a Republican fantasy, which the Trump administration pretends to believe. They come here to work. Illegal immigrants and refugees work and even start businesses. They contribute to the economy, they commit far fewer crimes than U.S. citizens, and they are the ones, by the way, who will be caring for the vast numbers of elderly Americans.
Another false assumption is that immigrants are already receiving benefits, but that, too, is doubtful, in this country where conservatives are fine with denying Medicaid and food stamps even to poor American citizens.
5
Immigration, as currently practiced, is a detriment to the US . It lowers US workers wages, and cost the US 0.25% of the GDP.
To cite Paul Krugman
First, the benefits of immigration to the population already here are small. The reason is that immigrant workers are, at least roughly speaking, paid their “marginal product”
My second negative point is that immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants. That’s just supply and demand: we’re talking about large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages.
Finally, the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear. Mr. Hanson uses some estimates from the National Research Council to get a specific number, around 0.25 percent of G.D.P. Again, I think that you’d be hard pressed to find any set of assumptions under which Mexican immigrants are a net fiscal plus
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/notes-on-immigration
Why should the US continue a practice that lowers the wages of the working class ?
14
Why is it tests such as these are fine for Canada, Australia, the UK, Germany, Norway, Denmark, and France... but not for the United States. Even Sweden, who provides a lot of support to immigrants, still requires that non-refugees can financially support themselves. There's no developed country in the world that doesn't factor this in at all.
21
These laws appear like nothing more than sensible. Rejecting a migrant who will rely on public assistance for over a year during a three year period? That makes complete sense.
I don't care where migrant comes from, but if they lack the means to support themselves they shouldn't be migrating in the first place. Immigration has been, and always will be, the strength of a great nation, but that strength cannot be bankrolled by an already strained welfare system.
19
Our institutions, laws, resources, job market, and social welfare programs exist for the benefit of OUR CITIZENS, of which there are approximately 350 million.
As a nation, we are philanthropic and more than generous with foreign aid...but we are NOT obligated to offer up our country as a pressure release valve for the world’s overpopulated impoverished billions. The ‘wealth test’ is long overdue!
20
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I can't imagine this will impact that many immigrants since most immigrants are relatively prosperous and hard working if for no other reason than getting here from Asia or Africa takes money and effort. On the other hand having more poor, desperate immigrants will help keep labor costs low for domestics, restaurant workers and the like. On the other hand I can see why some people think it is unfair to pay considerable public assistance to non-Americans. I still come back to the fact that at least historically most immigrants are prosperous and hard working. I suspect that Mr. Trump is using this to gin up his base and distract us all from the poverty and obscenely concentrated wealth in our society.
1
This policy hurts my heart. Question-is this what Americans want? Maybe you guys should watch the first episode of What’s Eating America.
1
If Professor Ramirez would tour Ellis Island, she would learn any migrant who was likely to become a public charge was sent back to Europe. This included anyone who was sick. The latter would be placed in a hospital on the island. If the migrant did not regain perfect health, he or she was put back on the boat to return to Europe. An illness as minor as a nail fungus prevented migrants from entering the country.
18
It seems they left off the second part on the Statue of Liberty when they put the plaque on in 1903
First part “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Second part is missing. “….and we will put your huddled masses in factories and on farms to toil 12 hours a day, six days a week, along with their children, others will build our railroads and work our mines, the rest we will put in the army or send to the frontiers to colonize all the land we have won”.
The millions of poor immigrants of the past entered due to U.S. pragmatism not humanitarian idealism. Every nation bases its immigration policies on its national needs.
11
The author really needs to get her facts straight. Everyone in my family, myself included, are naturalized U.S. citizens so I really know what I speak of.
First, current family reunification procedure *already requires* the sponsor to sign an affidavit of support for the relatives being sponsored. This is not new at all. In theory, those relatives could still go and apply for government benefits, but the government can then sue and collect from the sponsor who signed the affidavit. And there are precedents when it did so. This affidavit is a must have, no affidavit = no green card under the current system, period full stop.
Secondly, who are the people who would be affected here? These are by definition those not yet green card holders. So who then? B1/B2 visitors? Nope. Students on J/F visas? Nope. Foreign workers on H1/L1? No again. These are either temporary visitors or well-off people not lining up for foodstamps. Refugees? They arrive here with immigrant visas in hand and have benefits from day 1. So who's left? It is the illegals, it's the only group. So this is what all the fuss is all about, that illegals claiming benefits (which can ONLY be done under a false ID or by lying on forms btw) might not be able to get a green card? But there already is NO PATH for them to do so in the first place. So, exactly who are the people who are supposedly being affected? Let's hear the facts, not emotions.
18
There is only one moral justifiable immigration policy and that is open borders. Everything else is just shooting ourselves in the foot and restricting our right and the rights of others to live life as one sees best.
2
@Evan Davidson
Your country has a very restrictive immigration system which manages to deter most illegal immigrants.
In addition, Canada turns away any asylum seeker who tries to enter from the U.S. through an official border crossing. Canada tells the migrant that he or she must first apply for asylum in the United States. If the person has already been denied asylum in the United States, Canada refuses to give the person a full asylum hearing.
If the person crossed the U.S. Canadian border at a non-official crossing or enters Canada without first going through the U.S., then he or she will get a full asylum hearing. If denied asylum, the person will be deported asap.
When it comes to regular immigration, Canada chooses 2/3's of its immigrants on their merits (education, skills, language fluency, and ability to assimilate).
13
@ann I didn't set Canada's current immigration policy... I'm in favour of open borders for all countries.
1
We are all immigrants.
Those defining "illegal" and "legal" immigration today have never picked vegetables for a day.
This is America...we can find a way to fund a LOT of things!
(just ask the Pentagon!)
Let's see what happens when we deny these immigrants a chance at the American dream.
Check out the 14 Amendment for guidance if you must.
This isn't up for interpretation.
1
@Scott Franklin No, we are not. I was born in the U.S., as were my parents and grandparents, most of my great grandparents and so on. Some of my ancestors 12 generations back were here by the early 1600s. I’m an American; none of the European countries my ancestors came from, most of which have stricter immigration policies than the U.S., would take me back. I doubt Nigeria wants me either, despite my remote African ancestor who was probably brought here in the 1600s. I’m not an immigrant. Neither is anyone who is a native or naturalized citizen of these United States, first or 12th generation. We also have every right to set standards for who else gets to become an American.
7
If the economy only works for the 1% and the prevailing thought is that “Billionaires” are an abomination to say, God, Yahweh or Buddha (or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster), then why is the constant drumbeat surrounding more immigration involve the evocation of The Economy? We must think of the Economy and how to continue growth! You know what else desires growth. Cancer. Yet, why would the whole Progressive crowd (colluding with big business) want to continue the importation of a modern day peasant class of people? If Capitalism is the devil, then why is advocating for more humans to sacrifice to this economic system required?
A long look in the mirror and being truthful with oneself will reveal that a majority of man-made problems in the world are just that. Man-made. Having too many people, not responsibly managing natural resources yet expecting those same conditions to remain sustainable if another 4, 6 , 8 or 10 Billion more people exist.
Progressives are holding so many opposite competing thoughts in their head on these issues.
Cognitive Dissidence at its finest.
10
Trump's "Wealth Test" is the proof that Trump is "The Wall" street appointed man whose purpose was to turn our nation into a gated community, and the banks I presume would have been averse to an influx of poor immigrants that would have diluted the economy, lowering the bank's revenues, and it would likely have led to much higher taxes on the banks and wealthy corporations and people to support social programs for the poor immigrants. I have known for many years that New Yorker's were always angry about immigrants using public support. Kellyanne Conway consulted for the Suffolk County Executive long ago, Steve Levy who started the anti-immigrant rage on Long Island that Republicans have latched onto. The worst was when a gang of white youths in Patchogue NY on Long Island murdered a Hispanic man.
Much of this started on Long Island and a likely reason Trump and many others have focused on there.
1
Look, are the immigrants coming to steal our jobs or to lounge around, living on the worst social safety net in the developed world? Heck, if I wanted to live on the social safety net, I would go to a country that actually had a good one, like Norway. You would have to be a moron to immigrate to America to mooch off the government. It also seems unlikely to me that someone who is willing to go to the effort to leave home and travel hundreds or thousands of miles is a lazy person that is unwilling to work.
4
My big problem with Catherine S. Ramírez's article is that she accepts the bogus rights-claims of the rulers to use force or violence to determine where people may live.
Based on the principle of equal rights, a well known ethical principle, them the rulers are ethically entitled to the same rights as we the people -- and no more.
No one should accept their bogus exaggerated rights-claims. We the people might want to effectively and ethically remind them the rulers that their law can never be a valid substitute for justice.
4
I am an immigrant, first entering the country on a TN Visa, then gaining citizenship. I was never on welfare. I have never used public services like Medicaid. I have filed and paid my taxes every year since 1996. I paid thousands of dollars in legal fees to have my wife join me. We both hold advanced degrees and have never been unemployed.
I stood in line, and immigrated legally.
When I see someone enter the country and be allowed to remain just by walking over the border, and then given resources that I have helped pay for, I think, "why didn't I do it that way?? It would have saved me much time and trouble."
Call me cruel. Call me hard-hearted. But I followed the rules. Many more who follow the rules are still waiting in line. They, too, have much to offer, but the way the system works, I and those immigrants like me feel like chumps.
20
@Jimbo
You honored yourself, your family, and this country by adhering to the rules rather than trying to exploit them...and us, your now fellow citizens... for personal gain.
That’s integrity. Something to be extremely proud of...
6
The author states that merit based immigration is "humiliating in its utilitarianism." It is also misguided policy that inevitably brings popular backlash. If immigrants are recruited based on higher skill and higher education levels, and are employed in higher paid positions than the average American, then we can expect even more intense xenophobia. In conversation with my Trump-loving friends, I asked--using their style of rhetoric--"if they wanted immigrants recruited to to take the highest paying jobs, while they and their kids get the left overs." They didn't, and attributed that policy to Democrats. They obviously don't understand the implications of Trump's so-called merit based immigration. Further, other nations are not a model. The U.S. has a large population--unlike the other nations most often used as models--with unrealized potential that can be educated, trained and employed. Immigrants are needed to expand that pool--particularly as U.S. birth rates decline--of human potential---potential that is unrealized, denied or thwarted in other countries; and, America is opportunity to realize potential for those already here and immigrants. That is our history. Making immigration policy serve the immediate needs of the corporate job recruiting office, rather than looking to our nation's long term human development, is wrong on a moral and policy grounds.
4
The US hosts more legitimate immigrants than any other nation. We are also experiencing more illegal immigration than any country. Let's not forget those two facts when deciding on amendments to our immigration policies.
13
Clarify one thing that continues to be misstated. Medicare and Social Security are not, strictly speaking, "safety nets" or government benefits. To be eligible for SS you pay into the system your entire working life, by wages at qualifying levels and income withheld contributions, and what you may receive is determined by how many years you worked and at what salary. To be eligible for Medicare you have to have a record of qualifying for SS and then pay premiums that are deducted from your SS income, while also being taxed, and those premiums can escalate sharply if you have other retirement income, and in addition you need additional insurance to cover the Medigap for things it doesn't cover.
Neither is "free". Neither is "government assistance."
10
@Aubrey Thank you. When you've worked 40 years, with deductions on every pay stub, you don't want to hear that SS and Medicare are in fact safety nets everyone should have access to.
18
I feel much better when they are referred to as "entitlements" with a sneer - usually coming from some entitled silver spoon baby like Trump or one of the Kochs.
1
Trump's immigration "policy" is not a policy. Its a thinly veiled
use of scapegoating to garner, and hold, power by manipulating the masses. His wish to limit legal immigration to the best and brightest of those overseas, who generally have no reason to emigrate, is the tip off.
We can, and should, seek to lower the amount of people who come illegally. Of course, Trump focuses on the splashier border than the majority who get in by overstaying visas.
If Trump and the GOP really wanted to try and solve the immigration issue, they would have passed comprehensive reform when they controlled both Houses of Congress. Instead, we have one man rule by dictat.
Poorer immigrants compete for jobs with... poorer American citizens. However, American citizens have a wage floor called the minimum wage. Undocumented immigrants can work for less than this wage illegally, while legal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor overall. Both of these factors lower wages and reduce opportunity for low income U.S. citizen workers. At the same time, all these new arrivals often live in our most crowded cities, competing again with vulnerable U.S. citizens for affordable housing.
So yes, I think American citizens, especially the poorest among us, are already paying a high enough price. The wealth test is perfectly fair and used in most other countries in the industrialized world.
26
There are 59,000 homeless people in LA alone right now. It doesn't seem like it makes a lot of sense to take in more of billions of needy people from around the world right now when we are doing such a miserable job helping our own citizens at present.
21
"billions" of homeless immigrants from other countries? You must have heard that at the Trump Rally you went to. Of course, it might make good policy to a) fix the homelessness problem in the US - not by driving homeless people out of town as you know who would advocate and b) end the US support of dictators, end the destruction of other countries' environments and economies by US businesses, stop supporting wars that drive people to leave their home countries in search of safety.
2
As if we didn’t have enough of our own “poor, huddled masses” that we need to import them from other countries...
21
Might one reasonably suppose you are in favor of starving or driving out "our" "poor huddled masses"? Of course you would be in favor of raising the minimum wage, increasing the number of people eligible for Medicaid, restoring the number of children and families qualifying for food aid, increasing the availability of affordable housing, and other measures that would relieve the burdens crushing "our huddled masses" and destroying the futures of the children in poor families. Or are you afraid of the "moral hazard" - i.e. that "those people" would rather be poor and not have to work if they get too much help??
I really hope the Dem candidates have staff reading the public reaction to opinion pieces like this one. I think a solid majority of Americans support policies like the one decried hereby Dr. Ramirez. And I think a vast majority of Americans oppose any policy that resembles open boarders (i.e., discontinuing deportation for all but violent felons) and/or giving free health care to those who came to the US illegally.
After the first few debates, and the disastrous responses re this issue, it seems to have been downplayed by both moderators and candidates. That will not be the case during the general election. Trump will absolute hammer this point, and this is one of the few issues where the public consensus is squarely on his side (twitter warriors aside). Unless there is a softening of position, I think it's very possible that the Dem candidate could lose on the issue of immigration alone. It's that visceral to many people.
27
What a lovely picture.
Thanks for sharing it.
The irony is if Trump would enforce current immigration law, the "wealthy" business owners who hire these exploited workers would themselves be fined/incarcerated for doing so.
4
We don't have to keep doing the same thing forever.
Besides, there have always been restrictions on who could immigrate (disease, criminal record, country of origin...).
Circumstances are not static.
Also, these days, we must PREVENT OVERPOPULATION, so setting the bar higher makes all the sense in the world.
22
the "OVERPOPULATION" bugaboo goes back at least 150 years to when the world's population was a fraction of what it is now.... the real "problem" is that there are too many of "them" where them is poor people, dark people, "dirty people, people who don't speak English, all kinds of "others". "WE" are never part of the OVER population. We are good people who deserve to use as much of the world's bounteous resources as we feel like. Gimme a break.
There's a lot of sophistry in this column. How, eg, did Medicare and Social Security get dragged into this as welfare. Didn't our contributions and taxes pay for those programs. Social Security is so progressive now that America's middle class doesn't get back what it's paid in. If you didn't know that, read up on Social Security benefits and the appropriately named bend points (an actual Social Security term). How can we "rebuild" the safety net with an open-ended commitment to immigration. The math won't work. There needs to be a balance between the nation's ability to give help and those who need it. Medicare and Social Security are headed for deficits as it is. Medicaid, which already serves a large group of immigrants and their children, is a major contributor to American's growing national debt. How can our immigration service look like Sweden's when America has at least four times as many immigrants as Sweden has people.
23
how about starting with cutting the ridiculous military budget - officially 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars EVERY YEAR but really, when you include the interest costs, the secret agencies budgets and their "secret" armies and mercenaries conducting "secret" wars (which are not so secret to the people where these wars are occurring) it is more like WHOLE TRILLION dollars per year. A chun of that could pay for a lot of education, infrastructure, safety netting, care of the elderly and sick instead of more useless fighter planes, battleships, aircraft carriers, that would have been great to have to fight in WWII, but are just corporate welfare for the arms industry.
From many of the comments below, I get the sense that I should be happy if welfare goes to citizens and upset if it goes to immigrants. Why? Why should I be thrilled that James Johnson the ninth generation immigrant has six children and furious that Juan Gutierrez, the first generation immigrant has the same?
I believe that welfare exists to help vulnerable populations in need. Full stop. Insofar as immigrants constitute a proportion of the most vulnerable, I have absolutely no problem with my tax dollars paying the bill.
3
@Eric - gee - invite them into your house! Not mine!
8
@Eric
Because James Johnson has been paying taxes to support the social safety net and Juan has not. He's a freeloader.
4
Most people who worry about immigration don't worry about educated hard working people "sneaking" in. They worry about masses of poor, uneducated, and often benefit seeking illegal immigrants who see the US as a place to take from, not give to. I have zero problem with immigration, I have huge problems with open borders and unfettered immigration.
26
"The wealth test is but another attempt by the Trump administration to revamp the immigration system so that it’s based on “merit”..."
It's 2020, not 1820.
We live in a competitive, knowledge-based economy.
What on earth is wrong with a merit-based system similar to what is found in most other developed countries?
36
Why do we have to choose one extreme of the immigration spectrum over another? Some people argue for merit based immigration while others want family based immigration policies. I actually want to see both scenarios included in our national immigration policy. If a prospective green card holder has no family ties then by all means this person should be screened for what he/she can contribute to our country. A person who has family here then should be allowed to be reunited with the immediate family if and only if the sponsoring relative guarantees economic support for the migrating relative for a period of time, say five years, sufficient time for the immigrant to learn English and pick up skills to make him/ her contributing members to our nation.
3
My question for the author: Is there any limit to the number of immigrants and refugees she would allow? If there is a limit, how would she choose from the tens of millions who would immigrate annually if there were no limits?
Give us a number and tell us what you would do with illegal immigrants above that number.
As for "family reunification" who could be against that? I am all for an established immigrant to bring a spouse and minor children, but not elderly parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, nephews. Many of these otherwise fine folks will not be able to find jobs, will need schools, health care, housing, roads, sewer systems, etc. Meanwhile there is a backlog of people desperate to immigrate who are very employable, and maybe even have more compelling stories.
The fact is that with 7.5 billion humans living today, there are at least 100s of millions who are decent people, who's lives could be improved by coming. Up to a point. Because eventually, too many will simply lead to homelessness, crowded classrooms and hospitals, and of course, a huge public backlash.
The US currently allows over 1 million legal immigrants every year, as it has for decades. This is more than any other country in the world and yet, there is a huge waiting list. We must face the fact that either we pro immigration people set a limit, and a method to enforce it, or the American people will elect a fascist government that will eliminate nearly all immigration. The already have.
24
It is unfortunate that we cannot reach a sensible immigration policy that fits the needs of the United States today. The truth is that we don't need any more unskilled labor. The Chamber of Commerce may like unskilled workers because they keep wages down. US citizens in low skilled jobs however have not had a pay increase for decades and the best way to remedy the problem is to keep out more unskilled labor. The United States would benefit from having people with resources come to our country just like Canadians do. It is time to change the law in a way that curtails unskilled labor from entering the country and opening the door to people with resources and skills. The economic benefits to our citizens is what counts. In the 1920s immigration was cut by 98%. We should do the same thing today. Besides raising wages of our citizens it will allow for current immigrants to assimilate. It is absurd that people from Spanish Speaking countries get an affirmative action advantage over other Americans. Once major reforms designed to protect our citizens economic well being are in place then there can be adjustments to help naturalize illegal aliens just as was done in the 1920s.
22
I immigrated from Ecuador when I was five years old and became a citizen while a college student at Wellesley College. As I read this discussion board, I see the lies that have been successfully disseminated to the public.
Immigrants are not charity cases. Immigrants grow the economy--they increase the pie. Our country is stronger and our economy is bigger because of immigrants. Moreover, the American standard of living is higher because of the immigrants who do our work. How much more do you think your food would cost without immigration? How much more would your home renovations cost without immigration? How much would that new roof cost without immigration? One more question: how much would the American economy contract if immigration is dramatically decreased, as the far right, anti-immigrant lobby would like?
I hear a great deal about how much immigrants cost Americans (and are destroying our country)--but I do not hear Americans talk about how they themselves benefit each day from immigration, through their lower CPI/higher standard of living.
For once, I would like to see an immigration discussion that does not position the case for immigration as one based on the altruism of Americans. The U.S. needs immigrants as much as immigrants need the U.S. Immigrants add to our country and its economy--they do not take away from Americans.
7
@NYCIndependent So its ok for farmers to pay slave wages and push the healthcare of their workers off on all taxpayers?
It's ok that illegal, off the books, uninsured tradespeople destroy the wages of the citizens and businesses that follow work rules, regulations and wage laws?
Its acceptable that an entire class of residents is above the law and exempt from the costs and responsibilities to the general welfare while reaping their own personal benefit?
Only the protected and over privileged gain from mass unfettered immigration.
20
Hummmm... trump against “chain migration “ or family reunification.
Wait a minute.....and under what statute did Melania’s parents come to America let alone Melania came via the “genius” route. No insults meant to geniuses.
In the very early 1900s my grandfather came from Romania 🇷🇴 virtually penniless and unable to speak English. In the USA he sold canyons newspapers on the street corner and that lead to a prosperous wholesale business. His son, my father, spent 5 years fighting in WW II in Okinawa and Saipan. And practiced medicine for 42years. I worked as mgmt consultant for 40 years and my children are successful professionals contributing to society. And 4 wonderful grandchildren.
Now, if trump had his way, you could delete all that because I would not be here to post.
2
@Sam Marcus
Thank you, I rest my case. You are just one example of how immigrants add to our country.
WE ARE NOT CHARITY CASES: We are integral members of this economy. Without us, the American economy would contract; our GDP would shrink. We grow the economy. We are entrepreneurial. We provide jobs. We sit on boards of non-profits. We made scientific discoveries. We are medical doctors. We start high tech companies. We work in the social services.
2
No lines for people who buy their way into the country, perfectly legal in the US, such as Rupert Murdock and family, who
enabled Roger Ailes and created Fox News and built a toxic environment around women . They couldn't pass a morality test. But that isn't important in GOP America, judging by the republican majority Senate vote that keeps Trump in office, destroying any integrity that the US has left in the minds of many.
Public benefits and tax loopholes have the same effect on the economy. They put more money in the individual's pocket. But poor people spend it all and cycle it through their communities. For people who use corporate loopholes written by corporations, there are no flow on effects to the local community. The GOP actively hates poor people and actively promotes corporations over families. Every day there are more and more studies that examine the quality of health, education and the environment in the US, and they all imply the same conclusion:
The US is a terrible place to raise a child.
No political party has put forth policies designed to improve the lives of children after they are born. But the young children who are born to immigrants really make something of themselves and give back to the country. The problem clearly lies with the people who are already citizens who take the easy path and refuse to do the hard yards to become highly educated and keep Trump in power. They enjoy the meaness of that fake staged show, "The Apprentice."
3
@BBB "The US is a terrible place to raise a child. " Let's hope all these migrants heed your words, and stop trying to break doors to come into this country!
3
Immigrants may be supporting themselves when a natural disaster strikes and they like citizens HAVE to resort to temporary emergency food stamps or housing assistance, such as from FEMA. It is inhumane to put in a position to have to choose whether to disqualify themselves for permanent resident status as jobs may be temporarily, closed, and their housing is uninhabitable. That situation I know existed after Harvey in Southeast Texas and assume happens all over our country.
3
@Rabster
Harvey was an unusually bad disaster that is in no way common in the US. It is not clear that such temporary emergency benefits would be disqualifying and even if they were it would only delay someone from applying for a green card.
4
Yes it is clear.
1. The policy disallows permeant residence status if you, or you children, use any public assistance for a total of 1 year over the course of three.
2. Just as importantly, it leaves to guess work weather you will or will not during your lifetime.
There are may posting about point systems in other countries, that is not what this is, it is a pure economic decision.
Well said and historically accurate, thank you professor Ramirez, any comparisons with previous migration waves should lead us to more compassionate outcomes, not less. Accounts of the lives of immigrants from Europe in the early 20th century witness to the great privation and difficulties faced by these families. I suggest anyone who wants to know more about this should visit New York's groundbreaking Tenement Museum. It is there, where we see the kinship of families wanting to survive, who then give their best to their new land in stories repeated today. The idea of family reunification and of not treating people like a means to an end but an end in themselves is also profoundly rooted in Catholic Social Teaching and the Social Gospel of Protestant communities and thus, we can hope that entire congregations will be moved to vote for candidates who will implement humane immigration laws and put an end to practices that go completely against the very ethos of the United States.
2
@Cecilia Gonzalez-Andrieu
The United States is a sovereign nation, not a charitable organization. Our institutions, laws, resources, job market, and social welfare programs exist for the benefit of our citizens, of which there are approximately 350 million.
We are philanthropic and generous with foreign aid, but we are NOT obligated to offer up our country as a pressure release valve for the world’s overpopulated impoverished billions. The ‘wealth test’ is long overdue.
28
@Susanna
Yes when people mention the teachings rooted in catholic faith and such, I have no problem if the catholic church or some other religious org wants to support these people, but only when they can foot the total bill and no burden goes to the taxpayer.
3
I am an immigrant who came to the US as a teenager. My first job was mowing the lawn in a cemetery after school. I went onto graduate from high school, undergraduate, and then graduate school. I am now working in a major hospital helping cancer patients.
I did not speak English and had zero dollar to my name then. The organization that brought me here purchased a one-way airplane ticket to bring me here. I repaid all of it within one year of my living in the US. $276 was a lot of money for a teenage-refugee but thinking my reimbursement would help others behind me. Lots of planning and savings and I fulfilled my goal of returning the kindness and financial obligation.
The US never separates families. It re-unites. I still believe it that we can come back to that soon. The majority of refugees run away from their war torn countries. I know because I did. I am sure neighbors will harbor their next door neighbors when they are in crises, put politics a side. I have seen that and know that we still can.
8
"deny permanent legal status to legal immigrants considered likely to become a public charge"
As they should. If it's a "myth" then why are you so concerned about it? Merit based immigration is sensible.
Letting in large numbers of people that are likely to end up on welfare assistance is not. Look at the problems we already have now with so many veterans and homeless.
34
The US is such cruel and greedy country that many people are not having children. It really is the correct response to their situation.
The population grows as fast as it does because of immigrants. I don't mind immigrants, and I can see how they would want to improve their situation and might think that the US is a better opportunity, since often they are coming from a far worse situation.
I wouldn't mind if immigration were cut in numbers though, just because I think there is a limit to how many people you can allow to enter. On the other hand, I would give preference not to the most able, but the most in need. I'd prefer if we allow people in that we be doing it for those most in need of sanctuary.
Anyway, I find it humorous that the economy depends so strongly on immigrants. Without them we would have far lower growth, and maybe none. Now, I don't believe growth is really needed, because it really only benefits the wealthy anymore. And, I actually would like our population to decline, as well as the entire planets population. But this is humorous because the people trying to curtail immigration are desperate for growth (desperate in the sense that they are super greedy- not truly in need) and yet seem destined to destroy it. I thank them for their efforts. It could save the planet if they crash the economy of the US. Keep up the good work.
2
Nice article, but not much of a difference between many of the the comments and what Trump would sometimes say about immigration.
Until recently there was consensus that immigrants have been crucially beneficial to the US and to Canada.
But it seems that there is a new narrative. A country that accepted immigrants would have been engaging in some kind of costly charity, or mainly doing some service to the rest of the world.
Why this change in narrative is not much discussed, and why countries with important immigration would have been following policies against the national interest is not much explained either.
If the new narrative of “service to the world immigration” is misleading then the consequent focusing of attention on the presumed costs of immigration, and the consequent underestimation of the benefits if immigration, are misleading. The same for Trump immigration policy, and many of the comments to this article.
2
I do appreciate Dr. Ramirez's thoughtful piece, but take issue with its assumptions. My grandfather immigrated to this country from Mexico, but his reality was that there was no public assistance, and he and his family had to work very hard to assimilate and succeed. California handcuffs our 7 million illegal immigrants by conjoining the assistance we give them with an exploitative labor system, which is criminal in and of itself. It's a myth to think this is all about farmworkers. We have illegal immigrants staffing our car washes, fast food joints, and factory farms, earning next-to-nothing in wages and then relying on SNAP or government-supported food banks for subsistence. I want California to return to an era where we wash our own cars, have restaurants and packaged chicken become "expensive" again, and the people who do the work for those products make fair wages and no longer be exploited. We have to end illegal immigration at the same time that we punish corporations that encourage and profit from this pattern. The wealth test that is the subject of this article, unfortunately for us Democrats, is a step in the right direction.
26
The Trump plan to keep legal immigrants out will not succeed. Why? because as his acting chief of staff told a meeting in merry England, the country needs immigrants. We are an aging society and we desperately need younger people to fill in the demographic valley that now exists. Trump and his friends are very rich but what about all the millions of other 70+, 60+ and 50+ Americans who will depend on employees paying into the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds in the near future? The facts are bold faced, there aren't enough workers out there currently to pay all those payroll taxes needed to support your benefits. If you intent or expect to collect a Social Security pension and Medicare insurance in the next 30 years, you'd better vote the anti-immigrant Trump out of office.
1
I think this test is bogus. America represents an ideal, a country better and far more noble than most. That we an exceptional people would copy the work of other nations simply becuase of bogus political reasons is not only terrible but betrays the spirit of our. Nation.
I understand penny pinching, but America is bigger than our wallet. Grit, determination and inspiration are what will and have made this country great.
Less we forgot how this nation was founded by our fathers who grasped for a better life?
I for one believe in American exceptionalism and not in the trite ways of billionaires but in the spirit of hard working people, and a openness to others that is at the core of our freedoms and wealth.
Long live the union, and bring us those yearning to be free!!!
3
Ah, the United States, a country that has systematically underinvested in its own people for decades. If you actually took the time to understand the lives of average Americans, I don't think you'd blame them for being angry and out of empathy on this topic. From a 2019 Century Foundation report on the US economy:
Among OECD member nations, the United States is an outlier, with workers earning lower pay in comparison. When defined as the share of workers earning less than two-thirds of the median wage, nearly a quarter of U.S. workers are employed in low-paying jobs This relationship with other OECD nations has not changed markedly over time: America has been a consistently low-wage society, including now, despite being in the midst of the country’s longest economic recovery on record.
13
In an egregiously overpopulated world nations like the United States not only have a right to be selective about who they admit, they have a moral duty to their citizens not to overwhelm them with needy indigents.
42
honestly, this would be perfectly reasonable as long as a carveout existed to exempt asylum seekers, holders of U or T status, and other people whose basis for immigrating is humanitarian policy, compliance with international treaties on refugees, or the real contribution of an immigrant to our law enforcement in prosecuting criminals such as sex traffickers and domestic abusers.
It's not silly to prioritize people here on, say, a work visa, based on likelihood they will become a public charge. There are finite resources and poor Americans.
8
"Before the welfare state existed, poor immigrants had to give up their children when their husbands died or disappeared."
Very lazy for a college professor. Transforming anecdotes into unqualified, easily-disproven, categorical claims throws everything she writes into doubt.
35
What happened to taking in the "indigent, sick, poor....." and of those numbers what dollar amount are we talking vs the excessive tax breaks and other giveaways to the excessively wealthy?
4
Millions would like to move here. We can have our pick. Why not prioritize those with money to invest in a business; the educated, young, healthy and skilled who can work at remunerative occupations right away?
As automation continues it's foolish to add to the unskilled population.
28
@Cal Because it is dangerous to make a shift to basing a human's worth on their wealth and education.
There are plenty of people who would make welcome additions to our country who may not have advanced degrees or accumulated wealth - but they have work ethic and an eye towards the American Dream.
4
People from countries that have it better than we do are generally not falling over each other to move to the USA where life would be worse, unless there is some special draw such as a tenured faculty position with generous benefits and prestigious international research opportunities awaiting them. These include the already healthy, wealthy, and educated white Norwegians Trump loves.
The lion’s share of people trying to come to America today are, as in the past, those who don’t have it good where they are now, who are fleeing for the lives, who want a better future of their kids and opportunities for themselves, just like the people in previous generations who built America.
It’s an ugly old story: racism, and Trump knows how to tell it with a twitter sneer.
Note to American workers: if immigration is strictly restricted your life will not get better and your boss won’t relent and pay a living wage or give you benefits. Don’t be a dupe.
'But for some Americans, when immigrants are not ancestors, they become a danger. '
Sorry, that is the case for the majority of Americans.
You saw it in 2016, will see again this Nov.
And there is nothing wrong with that, each country has right to see and handle immigration the way it sees fit.
Greetings from a naturalized citizen.
19
Trump and his ilk simply cannot comprehend that poor people might have a chance. Trump, especially, thinks the "American Dream" is being a millionaire by 8 years old and being given hundreds of millions of dollars by Daddy. He really, truly cannot comprehend people actually doing it any other way. He is utterly pathetic.
1
For at least 100 years, prospective immigrants have been required to have a sponsor who will guarantee that they will not become public charges.
Nothing new here, beyond the details.
27
"President Trump complained to senators about too much immigration from what he called “shithole countries,” like El Salvador and Haiti, and not enough from places like Norway."
I laughed so hard when I first heard about this. My ancestors from NORWAY, came when it would have been considered a "shit-hole country" by the likes of Trump. They were small-time farmers leaving a country where they ran out of land for the people, and industrialization eliminating craft work. They came to America poor, migrated thru the midwest and ended up in far-norther Minnesota, probably the least desirable place in the country at the time, but much like their native Norway -though the winters even worse than where they came from. My mother grew up on a farm 10 miles from Canada, 10 miles from town - and it took a day to get there by wagon on mud "roads" They banked hay against the house in winter for insulation and lived in the kitchen all winter - the only place with warmth.
Nowdays many relatives still live there but others have moved elsewhere and started many businesses elsewhere, the family spread all over the US. It is what immigrants do.
Trump and his ilk simply cannot comprehend that poor people might have a chance. Trump, especially, thinks the "American Dream" is being a millionaire by 8 years old and being given hundreds of millions of dollars by Daddy. He really, truly cannot comprehend people actually doing it any other way. He is utterly pathetic.
1
When my Dad's parents came here in the 1880's you were pretty much on your own.
My grandparents were farmers in Illionois along the Illinois River. The land was poor so what they really did for a living was raise chickens which they would the take to Joliet to market. No indoor plumbing, no electricity or telephone or heat.
They were very poor and yet my Dad moved to Chicago and became a successful businessman and his brother was a CPA for a large corporation. Then they went and got all those amenities put in on the farm for their parents.
Point is there were almost no social services in those days especially in rural areas. They did the best they could.
The world has changed and if we are going to have immigration we need to give the immigrants a fighting chance at success.
7
The writer fails to capture just how nefarious the changes to the public charge rules are. There have always been public charge rules, and applicants for permanent residence through family members have long been required to submit an I-864 Affidavit of Support with proof that their sponsor will be able to support them in the event that they cannot support themselves.
The new public charge rules come with a new 18 page form - the I-944. It is extremely invasive and asks for detailed information about all household members of the intending immigrant. It also asks for information about the intending immigrant's educational level and background, English proficiency, and personal debt (including for education), among many other things. Signing the form authorizes USCIS to obtain the intending immigrant's credit report.
The new public charge rules change the analysis from one focused on whether an intending immigrant's sponsor can support them to a multi-part balancing test about whether the immigrant themselves is "worthy."
What is perhaps most disturbing about the new public charge rules is that they paint a very clear picture of what type of immigrant is now welcome in America - wealthy and well-educated. Across the country, immigration lawyers (myself included) are scrambling to determine the practical repercussions of this new policy.
4
@Kristin J What is wrong with favoring the wealthy and well-educated when it comes to immigration policy? Those are exactly the types of people we need to encourage to immigrate. People who are professionals, entrepreneurs, etc. We currently are allowing the poorest and least educated to come here. This is a most welcome change.
21
@Iconoclast Texan Because it is dangerous to make a shift to basing a human's worth on their wealth and education.
My father immigrated here from Germany with his parents. His parents were unskilled and uneducated, but worked extremely hard in the knitting mills and made a good life for themselves. My father worked a city job for most of his life and did fine for himself too. It was because of their hard work that I was able to get a great education and become a lawyer. My family members before me are not any less desirable members of our society because they came here with little money and close to no education.
The American Dream is future focused and all about improvement - so many comments here assume that those who come here poor and uneducated stay that way. It is simply not the case. In any case, I refuse to take a caste-like view of society and categorize those with with less education or less money as somehow below me or any less welcome.
3
@Kristin J There is nothing 'nefarious' about expecting immigrants to be financially self sufficient and not a burden on citizens and taxpayers.
Foreign citizens are not entitled to come here and live off my hard work.
12
“Under the new policy, titled Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, but known informally as the wealth test, prospective legal permanent residents must demonstrate that they 'are self-sufficient, i.e., do not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities, as well as the resources of family members, sponsors, and private organizations.'”
Fantastic! My relatives didn't come over and go on the dole in the 1920s. They had to work to eat. We shouldn't be allowing people to come here and become wards of the state, we have enough of them already.
And that's not a "wealth test". It doesn't require "wealth" to feed and house yourself.
37
@Mike
if all trump wants is educated, bilingual people then maybe americans will have to pick up the slack on farm work and restaurants and nannies and all those low paying jobs our kids are clamoring for...,
really people, this is a capitalistic society, we need immigrants on every economic level. wow, we may just see white people be the new poor given these immigration proposals.
2
@Mariquis this isn’t about not allowing people who have low-paying jobs, it’s about now allowing people that have no job. Sorry.
9
As far as I knew, the U.S. always required a sponsor who was an American citizen so the immigrant would not become a public charge. If that hasn’t been the case, why not and why shouldn’t the law be enforced? I see constant stories about the affordable housing shortage in California and New York and the problem of homelessness and of rising medical costs and schooling costs and the shortage of foster families. I favor a stronger social safety net but there are NOT unlimited resources. This is a losing issue for Democrats.
32
Our Canadian Native people have been mistreated for centuries. They still have high rates of alcoholism, sickness, lower levels of education, higher suicide rates, and higher rates of pulmonary diseases than immigrants.
Last year, "immigrants from foreign countries" that had entered the USA, were flooding into Canada, because Canada has been very lenient on the policy of safeguarding those in danger (e.g. South Americans, Africans, Middle East).
We saw some of them taking taxis to the border, armed with luggage, and their cell phones, and our border guards helping them.
Yes, we have very lenient laws that allow for all of this. However, when a minority of these immigrants know the system and demand free housing, free daycare, and free health care, one surely has to stop and ponder the Canadian Government's policy. Also, when these "family" people then bring in their elderly parents or handicapped relatives our country purse is straining at the seams.
My grandmother on my father's side came to Canada after her husband died. She worked hard for her 5 children, and they all helped her. My father dropped out of school before the age of 13.
On my mother's side, times were also hard. My mother's father was a drunkard who was mustered-gassed in WWI. He relentlessly beat her, until my grandmother fled to another province. My mother married and always took care of her mother.
On both sides of family, people had to fend for themselves. There were no safeguards or handouts!
17
A guest worker program that guaranteed that both citizens and any noncitizens were paid living wages (i.e., $15 per hour minimum) and consequently paid US taxes would do much to solve the "problem" of "immigrants taking jobs." That could be coupled with the US government ending its support for corrupt regimes in other countries, although that may be too much to hope for.
3
Catherine, I hear you loud and clear. My grandfather was a bracero, my parents immigrated in the early 70’s and we have PhDs and MDs in our family and I vote as left as you can go but I could not disagree with you any more.
My parents status was “legalized” through Reagan and now they are registered voters for the Republican Party. To say the least we do not talk politics...ever.
If you are advocating for family reunification it should be done when the person here in the US is ready financially to bring them here. If people are not able to financially cover their families basic needs then some of that money aspect could be swapped with courses. There should be a checklist that immigrants should complete like English classes, GED, understanding of services, clean DMV record, updated heath record and then be able to bring their families over, otherwise they are setting up generations up for failure. Why should someone with 2 DUIs be allowed to bring their family in if they obviously have a problem and are not even able to care for themselves. Families in their home countries have extended families and established social networks why would they uproot their stability and come to a country they can’t navigate or afford?
As you can see I am not speaking about asylum cases where people are fighting for their safety, those are different cases.
18
Even on NY Times, Professor Ramirez’s comments are attracting attack and vitriol: of course we should inspect the economic standing of immigrants and make sure they’re not going to go on welfare! However, deeper reflection shows two very good reasons why such a test is counterproductive for the United States.
First, if you want to address the undocumented immigration problem, the wealth test will simply push poorer immigrants into the undocumented immigration stream. As all of you know, American economy cannot function without low-wage immigrant workers. The domestic worker exemption makes it legal to hire undocumented workers. The choice is will they come through the legal or the illegal system? The wealth test simply guarantees more illegal immigrants.
Second, admitting only wealthy immigrants degrade the quality of American citizenship in deep and profound ways. Immigrants become attached to U.S., in part, through the economic transformation from greater opportunity and mobility. A poor immigrant achieving middle-class status in America is a grateful American. A millionaire immigrant who loafs around gated communities is an American who bought his way in and will go to another country for a better tax break.
The wealth test is both counter productive and short-sighted. It will exacerbate and worsen the undocumented immigration problem. It also undermines the fundamental idea that America is a land of opportunity and not a haven for the wealthy.
4
Wealth test is appropriate.
12
When I adopted my children from overseas, I had to provide reams of data proving that I had the income, housing and savings enough to support them. In addition, because they were adopted internationally, they did not qualify for various "free" programs (healthcare and education). These programs are in place (rightfully) to support the kids who are here already to encourage US citizens to adopt.
In addition, many of the types of jobs available to immigrants today are NOT the types of positions our ancestors had. We don't see many 11 year-olds planting crops or working in cotton mills. Many low skill jobs are now automated (like replacing cashiers with self-service scanners at the grocery store).
23
The gains from immigration are divided very unequally. Immigrants reap most of them. Wealthy Americans claim much of the rest, in the form of the lower prices they pay for immigrant-produced services. Low-income Americans receive comparatively little benefit, and may well be made worse off, depending on who’s counting and what method they use.
23
In olden days the same policies existed, just not enshrined into law. At Ellis Island the poorer arrivals were subject to more scrutiny than those with means. In fact, those without means required a sponsor to ensure that they would not become a drain on the public resources. No fan of Trump here, but the policy has some merit, even when the guy trying to enforce them lacks a moral compass.
As to the concept that immigrants here legally, yet not citizens should be entitled to all aspects of the safety net, well try getting health care in one of the European Union countries that have health care for all. Its $$ up front. Why become a citizen if there are no benefits for doing so?
14
*Medicaid and other health insurance and health services (including public assistance for immunizations and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases; use of health clinics, short-term rehabilitation services, and emergency medical services) other than support for long-term institutional care
*Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
*Nutrition programs, including Food Stamps, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Program, and other supplementary and emergency food assistance programs
*Housing benefits
*Child care services
*Energy assistance, such as the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
*Emergency disaster relief
*Foster care and adoption assistance
*Educational assistance (such as attending public school), including benefits under the Head Start Act and aid for elementary, secondary, or higher education
*Job training programs
*In-kind, community-based programs, services, or assistance (such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter)
The benefits above are are some of the benefits that immigrant can still receive and not be subject to the public charge rule. I would have been nice for the author to give a little bit more of context instead to make it it sound as it we are making impossible for immigrants to come to this country. https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/public-charge
25
We forget around the turn of the century as folks poured through Ellis Island, if you were sick, you were turned away.
If it looked like you could not take care of yourself, you were turned away.
Smart immigration restrictions are smart for the USA.
24
Ran into a green card holder in Brooklyn.
I bought food there on the way to F train.
It was Ave P and McDonald
Not an exciting take out restaurant
I asked him why did he bring his family to be away from his family in Asia?
He said “America is free.”
I said how?
He said :
I am in a cash business.
I pay enough to get a tax break on coop.
My wife is not my wife here.
She and the kids get Food Stamps.
They get Medicaid, the doctors and pharmacy are always nice.
I go to physical therapy in Brooklyn and they bill for spasm but I get free Asian massage.
.....
I hear stories from Texas about immigrants from countries in Africa.
Where they teach each other to game the system.
In Queens from SE Asia of scams to no end.
They get 90 days late paying mortgage to get govt payout.
Some say that the benefit fraud will bankrupt America by 2030.
I rather proceed with caution.
25
@Rand ..you would be surprised how many came here showing eligibility with reserves and all. i love americans and how we are so trusting; old world gaming ways are the way of life because no one respects their own corrupt government.
9
The Trump Administration's "white is right" racist thinking is surely put into practice with this policy and until Trump is out of office, I don't see it changing.
All of the negative commenters, unless you are Native Americans, are from immigrant stock.
My ancestors came from Britain, Scotland and Germany.
If you're reading this, where did yours come from?
In the 1970's, many Vietnamese made their way throughout southern Missouri as immigrants. No one knew what to expect of them but it was so good for this area. It set so many on a new path of understanding.
Before they came, it was very much "white is right" here.
Now, we have a large hispanic population that has come into the area.
And I am so glad. They are hard working and take great care of their families.
Trump has poisoned the thinking of so many people with his fear of immigrants. Get over it. You are on the wrong side of history. Check your bias at the door...walk through to fresh thinking and realize this wealth test for what it is: a tactic Hitler would be proud of.
4
Come spend some time nearer the southern border. Better yet, spend 12 hours in an emergency room awash with entire families of uninsured, non-paying, non-English-speaking foreigners while you wait your turn to fork over your $350 copay.
I used to be a died-in-the-wool Democrat. You know, back before other Democrats spewed nonsense such as this opinion piece.
40
@SA
Texas used to be Mexico, so chances are those people you see in your emergency rooms are not immigrants but rather 5th generation Americans, who've lived there longer than you've been there, and who have been working harder, too. The only reason they're uninsured is because the Republican party does not believe in any program to insure working class Americans.
A Republican is a person who hasn't yet gotten sick, sued by their hospital, or been treated like scum by their fellow Texan-Americans.
1
With half a million homeless Federal Deficit out of control, staggering welfare rolls ,millions without health insurance Please give me a break.There is nothing to stop you or any bleeding heart liberal to sponsor a refugee and make sure they have a roof over their head and do not become entitled new poor.On the other hand if you have money help the people who are here already.
18
If you cannot independenly support yourself, please do not come to the United States. American citizens are the only ones who should benefit from any welfare services. We cannot take care of all the poor people in the world who would love to come here.
25
"Indeed, those who say their ancestors didn’t get government help as newly arrived immigrants would have to admit that their ancestors also never enjoyed the government benefits, like Medicare and Social Security, that now make these critics comfortable."
Totally irrelevant. The plain fact is that those who often survived hell and got to the US did not enjoy any official support. The opposite was often true. (Go prove that one had been a physician in Warsaw before the war).
Just for the record, my grandparents in NY and other relatives in the US, supported any Holocaust survivor relatives they managed to bring to the US, and to do that they had to take responsibility for them legally. And they did.
If there was any outside support it came from private Jewish organizations such as those who took care of and placed my wife's half-brother and half-sister who got to the US through Kindertransport, their mother murdered and their father in Auschwitz and Buchenwald.
The families that took them in were paid by Jewish organizations. The Jewish organizations were supported by the Jewish community.
When their survivor father eventually got to the US, family of his murdered wife put him in a business and took care of him until he could do so himself, which he was to do quite successfully.
I do not say that this is the way it should be; it certainly was not then, but often when the government did not step in, support systems did, and they survived through private support.
12
There most certainly was a wealth and self-supporting test at Ellis Island. Anybody who was a criminal (don’t know how they knew this in a pre-computer era), mentally unstable or retarded, physically frail/chronically sick, or unemployable was shipped right back to where they came from. Communists and socialists also not welcome. And anybody that the examiner thought would become a public charge, back you go. You can look it up. The current self-sufficiency standard is not new, not new at all.
24
Denmark requires all immigrants to surrender all their wealth upon entering the country to pay for the potential use of the entitlements. I thought the US wants to be like Denmark?
18
I resent being indentured by Liberals into supporting immigrants in the US whether they are legal or illegal. If someone wants to migrate to the US they should either get the skills they need to support themselves in the US or find a sponsor who will be legally responsible for repaying American taxpayers for any public services they consume. If the sponsored immigrant uses public services, beyond the use of schools, and their sponsor do not repay American taxpayers, the sponsor's assets should be seized to repay the government and the immigrant they sponsored deported. That is the way it used to work at least until Ted Kennedy changed our immigration laws.
So as a morally and intellectually superior person living in a free country allow me to suggest that you use your own resources to sponsor a deserving immigrant and stay out of my pocket. I'll also note that anyone in America who wants to leave can, so family reunification for illegals is as simple as going home.
24
I like immigrants, but we have way too many, and they are crowding out my immigrant friends and relatives.
9
Done to insure that our poor stay in their low wage jobs.
5
I'm not going to dig into the details of this article, but the argument in the sub-head is sophistry ... "the way we do things now is different than the past, hence we are denying our heritage" ... do you think descendants of the Middle Passage would advocate for renewed "involuntary" trans-Atlantic travel?
I mean, that's how they got to the promised land, right?
9
We want all the smart people regardless of any other features such as wealth or ancestry, to come to America and become citizens. If you want to be crass, think "otherwise they will create things in other countries, and eat our lunch".
If you are afraid your (job, taxes, whatever hot button you have) will be adversely affected, well, stop eating Cheetos on the couch while watching fake news and feeling entitled, and develop yourself and your family. It is not "theirs to win" but "yours to lose".
3
Many people often fail to note how much their ancestors were in fact benefiting from government programs. The US used to steal land and sell it to white immigrants practically free.
3
It took my parents 11 years to be approved to come to the US. One of the requirements was for their sponsor to prove the wherewithal to provide financial support for them if that became necessary. Another requirement was to prove they and the kids were disease free and healthy. When they arrived at Ellis Island they again were checked, not all arriving that day made it though the first check by examining doctors.
In 1948 requirements were harsh by today's standards.
17
Merit based system? How about Potential based? As Professor Ramirez points out in her excellent op-ed, people are multidimensional. Immigrants seek opportunities. To live in safer communities, to be with family, to provide education for their children, and to become part of the workforce. The unemployment rate is low. Our country will benefit from immigrants with all levels of skills and education.
Permanent resident status is not a gift. It is a two-way opportunity. Immigrants receive a chance to develop their lives by combining familia support with our country’s ladder of educational and employment incentives. People are potential. Temporary economic assistance, when necessary, is an investment. The subsistence level survival safety net is not a target, it is a stepping stone. Ultimately, we will all benefit from these highly motivated individuals -- women, men and children who channeled their hopes, dreams and energies into becoming part of the American experience.
1
Oh contrar, it's as American as apple pie. My forefathers didnt receive handouts. They were strong and independent. They didnt need handouts. We have enough immigrants who are here for hand outs. No mas.
19
I really hope our own native grown (and very likely "good christian") xenophobes never have to be faced with the need to seek refuge in another country (one never knows..). They'll be the first ones crying to be admitted even if they need help. Guarantee it.
1
Classic NY times. Give other people's money away. Even sensible policies are decried as inhuman. Where is fact and evidence based reporting.
22
These proposed policies don’t seem to work. I see plenty of elderly non latino immigrants who are parents of prosperous immigrants who end up on medical or public assistance. Or where the kids end up taking “care” of them by getting paid by the state.
Everyone is gaming the system. It’s a sham to think the immigrants with money won’t game the system.
Many bring over their devious ways to cheat the tax system. Look at at “cash” business like restaurants, smoke shops, etc., you think they all are so honest about reporting income? How do you think they acquire so much real estate?
I think we should have citizenship classes that teach everything in our culture from respecting the tax code to treating people outside the caste method fairly. Old world ways die hard.
We already have enough homegrown scammers within our own population.
13
The fact that a law was interpreted one way in 1996 does not grant it some kind of magical permanence.
12
This so-called "wealth test" (more accurate would be "scare tactic") is not a new law passed in response to public demand, or a court ruling based on legal precedent. It is an arbitrary, and inappropriately delegated, executive decision.
It is time to stop hueing and crying about every clumsy, ill-advised and deceit-focused executive action (that is most of them) of the Trump Administration (while take little effective action against them). Congress should pass laws, preferably after a new (that is to say normal) president is in office who will sign them (and after a Senate with a reduced number of the rubber stamps to the current abnormal president, is office to help pass them) to rein in such excesses of the executive branch.
A wealth test per se is not un-American, although it is unusual. Neither is xenophobia, which, regrettably, is less unusual.
Xenophobia masquerading as a wealth tax and host of other unilateral presidential fronts, stunts and deceits is unique. Keep it that way by cleaning house in Washington at the ballot box in November.
Much of the language in these comments saddens me deeply. Where is our collective empathy for the experiences and circumstances of others?
While under the Trump era, many immigrants seeking asylum are not granted refugee status because of severe restrictions on what qualifies one for asylum, what continues to motivate humans to emigrate from their home qualifies them as refugees by most other developed nation's standards.
If your children were sexually assaulted in front of you by gang members and there was nothing you could do to prevent incidences like that from happening in the future, what would you do? I have to imagine, that like those fleeing similar situations, you would do everything in your power to resettle your family somewhere safe. For many desperate immigrants, the USA is a safe place, with systems in place to temporarily help those in need. We're all human - we're all legal beings - and we're all just trying to survive.
Let's focus our energy on supporting a better immigration system that sets people up for success from the start. It's the same idea as enhancing the public school system so that our children are better equipped to succeed in the future. Upstream interventions!
2
It isnt a "Wealth test".
I love how the far left invents new terms to push their victim ideology.
Did you know 1/3 of NYS residents are on Medicaid right now and the budget gap for the state is several billion dollars this year?
How many more poor people (also known as Democratic voters) can the U.S. take in to add to our own poor people before our social safety nets crumble? Do Democrats care?
Give it a rest. Far left ideology will destroy the country.
22
We don't need any more huddled masses. Times have changed. We need people with skills, and we only need a limited number of them.
The days of America being a safety valve for failed countries should come to a end. We're more than full up.
19
What?????
My grandparents and their siblings immigrated in the late 1800s - early 1900s. For each of them (my grandparents, g-aunts, and g-uncles) I know who “sponsored” them. In other words, who agreed to be financially responsible for them so they wouldn’t become wards of the state. The woman who sponsored my grand uncle Jeremiah, Ellen Burke, also paid for his grave when he was killed several months later by falling into a boiling vat used for dying fabrics.
The passenger arrival list available for some of them shows how much money they have with them and who they are going to stay with.
A discussion about immigration is important. It should be based on fact. Self-sufficiency of immigrants was expected of many of them during much of our country’s history.
17
I find myself really surprised at the scarcity of positive comments here. It's the New York Times, people!
Still, they move me to re-examine some of my own thoughts on immigration, legal and illegal.
Without getting into the weeds here, just let me say what I most object to is the administration's use of fear as a strategy. Fear in the migrant community (family separations are abominable), and fear/hatred in our own. It's wrong to encourage cruelty.
I'm also not a big fan of private detention facilities spending my tax dollars, and incentivized to fill space. Where is Trump's "big, beautiful door?"
1
I legally immigrated from Latin America. So did my wife.
We both had a long wait. We both learned English and have worked extremely hard to have what we have. No one gave us anything. Not the activists, not the politicians, not 'our' community, nor the government.
Like most people everywhere (Not only immigrants), we had to claw our way up. It is hard. It takes determination and hard work. Not handouts.
I know many immigrants (Some still undocumented), that have built businesses or gone up the corporate ladder.
I know many others that don't want to learn English (Why should they, everything is in Spanish), they go to the emergency room to have babies (free). In other words, they know how to exploit the system.
Many citizens and corporations do the same. They exploit the system and abuse government benefits.
My point is that immigrants are no better or worse than anyone else. The media wants to show them as martyrs. The only ones that benefits from that view are activists and politicians.
We need immigrants, but we also need to respect laws and be able to see economic and social reality.
We can't continue to reward people that chose to do things outside the law, while making it so difficult for those that want to do things right.
We are like everyone else. Some good people, some bad. Most immigrants don't want your sympathy or your handouts. We left our countries to work and be a productive part of a free society, not a burden to our hosts.
16
@Warcraft Absolutely but we get what we tolerate. Let's stop tolerating lawless opportunism and embrace respect for our laws, innovation and productivity.
10
On the surface this makes no sense. We'll close the border to the poor who will do the jobs citizens will not, but we'll crack it open for the immigrants who will take the more desirable jobs from citizens. Underneath this is the reality that the people gathering in refugee camps at our borders are poor and this is a poorly disguised justification for refusing to help them. This Republican Party is an affront to common decency and a national security threat. Vote!
3
I will skip the academics and economics and simply say - Ramirez has an agenda and doesn't know what she's talking about.
21
Westward expansion and industrialization created a huge demand for unskilled labor. The nation readily absorbed immigrants irrespective of their skills and education.
From a purely statical standpoint, when masses are admitted, an occasional significant success story is a certainty. However, as a general polocu
1
I hope that someone shows this comment section to the Democratic nominees, who have all gone on record saying that they would extend free health care to illegal immigrants. They are so quick to idealize the economic practices of Scandinavian countries and yet they never mention their immigration policies. Say it loud for the people in the back: You can't have both a welfare state and an open immigration policy. The people dependent on taxpayer subsidies will grow rapidly, while the tax base does not. Tax paying citizens will feel resentment towards this wealth transfer. And you'll end up with President Trump for 4 more years.
21
When my brother got a green card through the diversity visa program, he had to have a sponsor here that would guarantee that he will not seek public assistance - food stamp and county health care system designed for low income legal Americans. If he did not have a sponsor, he had to show bank statements with enough money to sustain himself until he finds a job. These regulations are not new, they are just highlighted as Stephen Miller's immigration policy to show he's getting some work done.
13
Trump is making policies to enable rich people to do as they like while making everything harder for all others. He talks like a populist but governed as a plutocrat. Most Republicans are supporting him because he says what they want to hear without considering the consequences of his actions. He’s not acting in their best interests.
I am not a white nationalist "fulminating" about reclaiming America. But I do think it's worth re-evaluating what criteria we do use for legal immigration. Allowing family members perhaps gives away valuable "spots" to people who may actually be less poor and less needy of those spots than others. Allowing people who happen to be able to walk across the border to have precedence over people coming from overseas also lets chance dictate our policy. Whether your interest is in keeping out the poorest and most desperate, or whether your goal is to actively welcome them, family reunification and lax enforcement at the southern border don't allow for precision in meeting either goal.
15
The author completely discounts what should be the prime factor when considering immigration - what value do those immigrants bring to the US. Economic self-sufficiency, education, job skills and wealth should be the only factors considered when crafting new immigration policy. Feel-good anecdotes from the past and reciting the Statue of Liberty's poem are not relevant factors to base 21st century immigration policies. We need immigrants who will enrich our country and help us fend off challenges from our enemies. We are no longer an empty continent that needs settlers.
21
I’m on board, so pull up the ladder. Our government, under direction of the GOP and trump have uncovered the rock that used to hide “mean”.
2
@Iconoclast Texan
"We are no longer an empty continent that needs settlers."
Ech. "We" never were!
3
I know two women whose parents came from Egypt about 40 years ago and received free government services. They never worked one day here and had eight children who were gainfully employed. Yet they did not contribute anything to the support of their immigrant parents. They preferred the government to take care of them. This is unfair and unjust and should never have been tolerated. Why should someone else have to pay when these able bodied children could support them. This must stop and the Trump administration is doing the right thing. Both political parties ignored this until now and why we are in this unfortunate state. The Trump administration should be applauded.
28
It's not new. When we immigrated we needed someone to sponsor us and promise to financially support us if we were not able to do so.
24
This so-called wealth test (more accurately: "scare tactic") is not a new law passed in response to public demand, nor is it a new court ruling based on legal precedent. It is an executive action.
It is time to stop hueing and crying about every outrageous (that is to say many if not most) executive action of the current president (while doing little to prevent them in the first place).
Congress should pass laws (preferably after there is a new, that is normal, president to sign them, and a new Senate with a reduced number of rubber stamps to that president, to help pass such laws in the first place) reining in such unjustified excesses of the executive branch.
Wealth tests are not necessarily unAmerican, but have been historically uncommon. Xenophobia, regrettably less uncommon, is nonetheless not a defining American tradition either. Xenophobia masquerading as a wealth test, and a host of other presidential tricks, stunts and deceptions is a disgrace unique to the current administration. Keep it that way by cleaning house in Washington DC via the ballot box this coming November.
6
My Irish ancestors came here years ago and had to be sponsored by a family member. They had to prove they could support themselves and not be a drain on the government. They worked hard and never received one red cent of public assistance. They were proud people and would not have taken a dime even if it had been offered.
The difference with today’s many immigrants is that they cannot wait to get their hands on free money and services. They not only expect it they demand it. They should not come here unless they can support themselves. Why should the hard working American taxpayer foot the bill for those who do not want to work for a living. I fully agree with only immigrants coming to America who can pay their own way. No more government subsidies for these people.
34
@KMW
And yet you expect immigrant workers to subsidize your produce prices by working for slave wages.
4
@April I don't expect illegal immigrants to work for slave wages and be mistreated (unlike you). I prefer we keep illegals out, and give the job to Americans (for more money).
5
I am deeply grateful that Katherine Ramirez is not in charge of our immigration policy. Her reasoning is deeply flawed (in every sense so it is pointless to mention the ways). More pieces like this will simply convince the undecided that President Trump’s policies regarding securing the borders now is essential to our survival.
45
@toddchow Well, If Mr. Sanders become our President, expect a lot of Katherine Ramirez working for his Government and taking decisions and making policies.
16
I've read so many comments that I think miss the point - perhaps the writer wasn't clear. We're not talking about who to let cross our borders into the country. We are talking about people who are already in this country, who are applying for permanent legal status, who may have come here legally, but are not yet citizens or permanent. The new policy has a chilling effect on legal immigrants who may need to apply for safety-net types of assistance. They won't be applying for food assistance for their children, or medicaid, or even individual State help programs, for fear of being arrested and deported.
8
@Easterner The point is that people won't be able to sponsor relatives who look like they will need assistance.
16
@Easterner
Spot on. So many people say "Trump just wants people to follow the rules" when his policies are specifically intended to punish people who are following the rules.
4
The commenters seem to misunderstand what's happening here. First, this new rule applies to legal immigrants—mostly those sponsored by family members who are US citizens. It does nothing for or against illegal immigrants who already are not eligible for any benefits.
The public charge rules have been in existence for a long time. Being on welfare was always something that would hurt your ability to get permanent residency. What the new rules do is put additional restrictions on legal immigrants. Mostly, they prevent these immigrants from using Medicaid or public housing, programs which often help the working poor and are often stepping stones to independence. The point is to make it hard for working poor people to stay here despite being legal immigrants. I'm not totally against there being requirements for immigration—but the Trump administration is clearly trying to prevent poor people from coming to the US. That's unfortunate, because some of America's most productive citizens came here (or their ancestors came here) as poor people.
9
Before there were government benefits racists had other rationalizations for excluding Catholics, Slavs, Italians, Chinese and many other " undesirables. This "policy" is not different, but a variation on a theme.
9
@Marc No not really. Taking a few poor people is okay...taking millions will destroy our social safety net.
Calling everything "Racist" is wearing thin with most Americans and it just isnt true. Trump will win big because of people who think like you.
13
A visit to the National Park Service Ellis Island, Statue of Liberty National Monument (https://www.nps.gov/elis/index.htm) would show the INS that "PC" was 'subverted' by private & not-for-profit social and religious organizations helping immigrants to enter the United States.
Many people "on the dole" are white and poor and definitely of immigrant stock. What say you of this, Trump voters?
Should you be turned out into the street because your circumstances have fallen? Job loss, illness, divorce.
Drug addiction was ignored until it became a white problem. If Black Americans died, no problem. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
What if an addict overdoses more than two or three times, should we let them die because they are a drag on community resources? Your anti-immigrant reasoning applied to addicts.
Except immigrants do jobs whites won't do. Hotel services, fruit picking, poultry slaughtering etc. Again, hypocrisy.
Your local governments are stretched to the max to pay for you and your families' safety (and opioid overdoses) and if they couldn't help you, would you go to another place, another country to live, even at the peril of your life?
You are fine in your ivory towers.
Get out on the streets and see what life is really like for those who know what struggle is.
Get your hands dirty. Share what you have with those who have nothing. Say no to sharing your freedom. Go ahead. Say no.
6
@American2020
So you’re saying even though we have plenty of needs here we should import even more poor people so that the over burdened tax payer can take on the poor of the world as well as our own? No thanks. Feel free to give away whatever you have but you aren’t entitled to give away other people’s money.
17
@American2020 "Except immigrants do jobs whites won't do."
Playing the race card for every policy is tiresome, untrue and most moderate Democrats are rejecting your ideology.
13
"the new rule could prompt some 23 million noncitizens and their U.S. citizen family members not to apply for or to withdraw from public benefit programs."
Not sure the Times realizes this, but advertising that little known fact will infuriate many, even Democrats. 23 million foreigners, or people living here who are not citizens, leaching off the the US taxpayer, is insane. Most folks were under the impression non citizens had zero access to our social safety nets, besides those foreigners of course who emigrate here illegally, then have a child on US soil. No wonder our deficits have skyrocketed. No wonder food stamp expenditures doubled under Obama, and no wonder America is so fed up, that a guy like Donald Trump won the election. This "new rule" should have been put in place the very day our social safety nets began. It is incredulous that it wasnt. And now Bernie, and/or all the Democrat candidates (not sure about Bloomberg yet) want open borders too? How high would taxes have to go to cover current spending and our Trillion dollar deficits, pay for all the new programs Bernie wants, not to mention providing a living for the worlds poor through food stamps and welfare?
Are you kidding me? And then you wonder why Trump is going to breeze through re-election.
Seriously - 23 million non-citizens had access to our social safety nets before this rule?? Wow. Just wow.
61
@Sports Medicine
We have many, many people in the US who are non-citizens who are paying taxes. Of course they are eligible for the programs they pay into. It's hardly a scandal.
The real scandal is that we let undocumented workers pay taxes, then exclude them from the programs that they pay into, and then claim that they are the greedy ones.
3
@April
Dear April,
Exactly how do illegal immigrants pay taxes with out a social security number.
The answer is they don't.
The only tax they pay is sales tax. They pay no federal income tax, social security, or state income tax.
12
@gpickard
If they are employed - say, in construction, gardening, cleaning services, they may not have a legal SSN, but I guarantee you that their employer is taking SS & Medicare contributions out of their paychecks.
1
“Give me your tired, your POOR, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”
(Emphasis mine)
9
@hddvt and none of them had a social safety net. I’m all for letting poor people immigrate here if they are denied taking from a system they didn’t pay into.
16
@Emily S The only exceptions: REAL political refugees., under political or religious persecution by a government.
1
@hddvt
That is a cheesy poem from 150 years ago when our population was one 1/6 what it is now. It is not now and never has been policy. Our country and the planet have changed dramatically since the 1800s. Our laws including immigration have to reflect a changed world as well. My and reality’s emphasis.
12
I would wager that there are more homegrown “americans” on welfare and being a public charge than new and existing immigrants.While our own are sitting on their rear and “collecting”,legal and illegal individuals are tilling the land,picking produce,roofers,drywallers,construction workers,hospitality services and on and on.We have met the enemy its US!!!!
8
@Jai "I would wager that there are more homegrown “americans” on welfare and being a public charge than new and existing immigrants."
But they were born here! We have to take care of them.
The far left has lost their collective minds and will destroy this country. Their ideology is lets destroy all social safety safety nets and take an unlimited number of poor people into this country. God help us all if they take power.
17
When homegrown wastrels are dining at the public trough why would you chastise hardworking”brownies”doing jobs “real Americans”WILL not do!!
The irony is that by only allowing those with marketable skills, immigrants really will be taking the good jobs that Americans desire. What’s now a xenophobic trope will become reality.
4
@Upstate Guy Calling everything "xenophobic" or "racist" wont work with most Americans working hard to get by in this country.
Try again.
8
I'll have no problem with wealth being a requirement for entry... right after we put US business men in jail for hiring illegals and when people admit that they are willing to pay 15 bucks for a tomato picked by ' hard-working Americans'
11
@UH
Try finding out a few facts first. The nyts has reported that labor is only 10% of the cost of picked fruits and vegetables. So you'd have to pay them many x their wages to get anywhere close to “15$ for tomato’s”.Most illegals work in construction not on the farm. Who do you think pays for all the services these people’s kids use? Not them, they don’t make enough. Regular taxpayers do. Tax payers are subsidizing the poor and the growers already. Many of these jobs are going away due to automation so the need for ever more cheap easily exploited labor is going down all the time. What will they do then with no skills or education?
People should be: legal, paid a living wage, taxed fairly and every company should have to use everify under threat of jail time. Exploiting these people to save a couple of cents on tomato’s not only isn’t true because the true cost is hidden, but is despicable and unamerican.
10
“Immigrants” in this administration has come to mean brown and black skinned newcomers. The GOP needs for their mean-spirited, bible thumpers and 2nd Amendment followers to blame others for not getting ahead. The man behind the curtain represents right-wing packed courts whose interests are corporations and the rich.
5
Everything this president and government does in Un-American. They are tearing down fundamental values this country has stood for since its inception. We may not always hold to them but at least in the past we've made the effort to seem like we do. This guy is a traitor to everything most Americans thought they stood for.
3
What I haven’t seen discussed is the impact of these requirements on families. It seems that under this new rule undocumented spouses of poor US citizens will not be approved to become residents. They will not be able to live with their families, leaving many sad and stressed single parents having to work very long hours. This is not good for anyone and is not going to save any money. These now single parents are much more likely to struggle with physical and mental health problems and to need benefits like Medicaid and food assistance. Their children would be far better off, and far less likely to need benefits into the future, with two parents working together to provide for and take care of them.
3
Enough with the fiction that it is a “wealth test”, it’s a “public charge” test.
42
So for those advocating the stable genius’ (SG) policies how much interaction do you have with a typical native born American? Do you think that many typical native born Americans will pick lettuces and get paid almost nothing? My neighbor’s stepson, a high school dropout but a graduate of the local jail, refused the slave wage (his words) of $9 an hour. High school graduates who do nothing to improve their skills complain constantly about their low pay. They use more colorful words.
In my mother’s nursing home there is always a shortage of aides. The aides are poorly paid. How many native born Americans are willing to work for poor pay and have to do things like wipe and wash an elderly bum? How many native born Americans are willing to work in a place where people go to die and get paid very little?
I suspect that there are many other low paying jobs that many native born Americans are unwilling to do. We need to improve the immigrations laws but who will do the low paying jobs if only rich and highly skilled people are allowed to immigrate here?
4
@M. Natália Clemente Vieira Then those jobs will have to pay more to attract legal American workers. That's a good thing, because it will finally start moving wealth into the lower classes. You don't have a right to cheap labor.
7
When my immigrant peeps came over, there were no Federal government programs whatsoever. No state allowances. None. Why start now? Why continue? You need to hit the ground running here. Always have. Also--for those immigrants who feel picked upon--America has always beat-in the newest. I don't know why, we just have. I suspect it's not personal. It's more like a grit test. Like in a big family prepping you for world survival before we hand over the keys to the kingdom. My other peeps, indigenous to America, did the same. We tested you until we knew you could survive because you needed to do so.
15
Canada screens immigrants in terms of economic value, why not us?
38
Why is SCOTUS able to take this Administration case on an emergency basis, while unable to do the same for cases involving impeachment subpoenas?
2
I like the proposed British immigration test. You have to speak English, have a job ready, and make a minimum salary. No more open door immigration for them now that Labor (the political party) has been defeated.
34
Neither ancestral brown aboriginal Indigenous men, women and children from multiple ethnic sectarian nations nor ancestral black African men, women and children from multiple ethnic sectarian nations living in America were immigrants.
Neither Spanish nor French nor English nor Portuguese were nor are they native natural American cultural and language original heritages. They are all the result of white European Judeo-Christian men, women and children political socioeconomic colonial conquest imperialism.
My earliest known white European American ancestor was born in London in 1613, married in Virginia in 1640 where he died in 1670.
My earliest known free-person of color ancestors were living in South Carolina and Virginia during the American Revolution and fought on the side of the rebels.
My earliest known black African American enslaved ancestors were living in Georgia and South Carolina from 1830/35 where they bred with and were owned by my white European American ancestors until General William Tecumseh Sherman came by.
My free brown aboriginal Indigenous American ancestors were living in Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia from 1830/35 where the mated and married my black African and white European American ancestors.
By past and present historical convention this makes me all and only black African American. While I do run from nor shun this definition when asked I claim my race as human and my national origin as Earth.
3
If the majority of readers of the NYT providing comments are in favor of controls on immigration then the larger community must be overwhelmingly in favor of controls.
Pay attention Democrats! Open boarders & policies that dependency are a losing position!
43
I can only say to the author, if you are willing to support destitute or elderly immigrants on your own, please feel free to do so.
The US does not need any more freeloaders to come here. It seems we have grown to many of them ourselves.
42
@Bill
No surprises here. People want to do charity on someone else's dime.
If you want to sponsor a relative...be prepared to take care of them.
10
The US has ~300,000 births to illegals/year. They are citizens, so all the public services they qualify for (from public education to Medicaid, to food stamps) is not counted as a “cost” of illegal immigration. We are no longer an empty continent in need of uneducated, unskilled people to be exploited for their cheap labor. In a world of increased automation and a permanent over supply of people and labor and a decreasing need for low wage labor, importing the worlds poor is now reverse exploitation. It’s not 1900 and never will be again. time to change our laws to reflect the 21st century and a world of 7.8 billion people and 330 million Americans.
35
@AT
This article is about LEGAL immigration, not illegal aliens.
It currently costs $644,000 to build one new unit of subsidized housing in Los Angeles.
So subsidized housing does not just mean providing people with funding--it means having the housing available.
We cannot afford to bring in people with these needs when we don't have housing for those already here.
25
This writer is trying to portray these changes as hard-hearted, and perhaps they will make it more difficult to get by for those least able. But she is ignoring the immigration policies of other nations, the very countries she cites. No other country allows or has been as permissive, for example, toward illegal immigration as this one. That needed to stop. And what would Ms. Ramirez say about a Mexican woman, who snuck into the country and landed in Florida, and now has six children, all born here and we know why, and is getting food stamps? The local paper did a story, decrying the new policy that penalizes immigrants who receive public aide. Nobody wants her children to go hungry, for God's sake. But ask, if she is so income limited, why have six children? And what of the support of the fathers of these children? They simply left, but are still in America. The point is, this issue is not a simple one. Yes, there are immigrants who do come here for our safety net, as frayed as it is, who make Americans feel like we're suckers.
201
@gmt
It costs from 10-15,000$/year to educate a child in the US. Every kid gets this, legal or not. So this woman is costing taxpayers 60-90,000$/year JUST for public education not including all the other “freebies” they qualify for. Gives lie to the often stated position of the left that poor immigrants pay their own way in taxes.
42
@AT
it is a fact, undisputed and backed up by mountains of evidence, that money spent on education has one of, if not THE highest return on investment over the long run, of any taxpayer funded endeavor. so whatever "this woman is costing taxpayers" is a veritable pittance when we factor that the return on this investment includes 6 productive members of our society that will pay taxes over a lifetime and likely provide other values to society. by contrast, that 60-90k could be spent on keeping one person in prison for a year, or pay for 1/2170 th of what taxpayer have paid for trump to golf.
also, just fyi .. if you are so worried that some people may not "pay their own way in taxes", look no further than your own state, which receives far more federal tax dollars than it pays in. thus YOU fail to pay your own way in taxes. you can thank states like mine, that help pay your way.
43
@JM
I pay the top rate and I’m not a rich rancher or farm corporation that get most of those subsidies. and if you want to spend money on education as you say, perhaps we should be using it to improve the education of Americans and not just to keep treading water as our swamped education system is now. California has shown what happens when a system costs a lot, has poor test results and spends most of its time trying to house students that speak over 90 languages and don’t get a decent education because they are over whelmed. You seem to think nothing of spending other people’s taxes to educated kids of people who don’t pay their fair share.
29
Justice Sotomayor’s recent dissent strikes me as being a great example of how out of touch with reality the far left finds themselves when engaged in the immigration discussion.
Her criticism is that the SCOTUS is too quick to act on requests by the Trump Administration to provide emergency relief for obviously flawed decisions that have been made by lower courts. But what she is advocating is the continued use of the judiciary by far left extremists to try and thwart the legitimate policy changes being implemented by the Administration.
The out of touch federal district courts in the West are making obviously unconstitutional rulings solely in an effort to slow down the completely legal and legitimate policy changes being implemented by Trump. The Administration has effectively sought relief from the SCOTUS. Sotomayor’s rant was simply her version of a primal scream.
27
@William I agree. I am surprised she did not stand up and tear some papers in half.
2
Catherine Ramirez 'cherry-picks' aspects of two centuries of immigration policy. Her argument rests primarily on nostalgia.
1. We have no obligation to take in every person who 'wants' to come to the United States.
2. While immigration has overall helped to build the economy, not every single immigrant brings a net benefit. Merit matters.
3. Immigration has become weaponized by politicians that find it easier to import 'new voters' rather than win the support of existing Americans.
37
@Ami You are so right. Democrats are going down in November.
6
The world has changed. Immigrants from 30 or 40 or 50 years ago (or more) are not in any sense comparable with today's would-be immigrants. Having a safety net (one of the appropriate pillars of a civilized society) changes the dynamic completely. That, in itself, becomes attractive to new immigrants. Migration should be skill-driven.
27
1,000,000 lawful immigrants per year is quite enough. Foreigners don't get to decide who qualifies as an immigrant; we citizens do. It's un-American to remove the door and allow anyone in without consequences. I object to 1,000,000 Central Americans invading my country last year, giving us the bum's rush by using the magic word "asylum" to secure lifetime benefits and the privilege of US de facto citizenship.
64
My husbands' parents and my grandparents were immigrants. They came here with skills and a working class job already set up and they labored, built wealth, and became middle class in a generation. They never relied on assistance.
Sweden is a terrible example to point to for any positive examples of immigration policy. Sweden is struggling to integrate immigrants from wildly different cultures into their society, immigrant communities are poor and crime ridden, and in reaction to too much immigration there has been a rise of the far right.
It is disingenuous to compare Medicare and Social Security to SNAP and Medicaid; the people who benefit from the former PAID into them through their own labor.
Many other countries like Canada already have strict immigration policies based on merit and economic need.
I find it shocking that a professor being published in the NYTimes is so unaware of the realities of immigration in Sweden, laws in other first world nations, or the difference between food stamps and Social Security. And there are no relevant facts here, just uncredited assumptions thrown out in a lazy attempt to "deconstruct" the reality we all know and create a preferred "narrative".
Of course the author has a background not in concrete policy, but Marxist "Ethnic Studies."
This is what passes in our cultural institutions for insight now. No realities, just "narratives". No wonder so many people have lost trust in the traditional media and higher ed.
55
Has something changed in our immigration policy toward asylum seekers, or is the problem that they are brown-skinned and speak Spanish and indigenous languages? It's the impression I'm getting from some of these comments.
Not to be negative, and I don't think this is ...... It's a lot more complicated than this.
Not all immigrants, regardless of how they got here and their current status as to illegality, residency, or citizenship, want the same thing. Number one, not all want citizenship. Not all want to or are learning English, (in my town, ESL classes are very cheap or free, and are available during the day and evening). Not all are getting driver's licenses, although legal to get now, and they are driving daily. All that said, I only know of one family that has, somehow, gotten any help from a government assistance program of any kind. Most are working hard at hard jobs, six and seven days a week.
In regards to 'pre-qualifying' people who want to come to the U.S. in regards to their finances and education? GREAT. The better their finances and education the better equipped they will be to compete with current Americans for middle class and better jobs. Think Hindenburg. OOOOOoooooh, the irony.
4
I think it's interesting to hear Americans claim that we can't take more poor immigrants because we need to take care of our own. Of course, Americans also react in horror when Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren suggest giving Americans "free stuff."
Maybe we should just stop with the justifications: Americans are just selfish.
4
This is exactly how progressive Canada's immigration policy works.
20
The immigration policies of Donald Trump are cruel and oppresive; he is a despot and not benevolent. His latest demand to fire government employees not loyal to him personally is unconstitutional and constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor of a dictator and even worse. Legal steps aside from impeachment must be taken to dismiss him and force him to resign.
1
It is not only un-Amercian, it is absolutely Trumpian.
2
Why can't we talk about adapting our laws to the world as we know it today and not what it was 50 years ago. So the author's ancestor dug graves and worked as a cabbie. Nice inspirational story that. But that was in the past. Today, we have our pick of highly qualified and educated talented engineers, doctors, scientists, artists etc. from the world over. Let's pick the best talent we want here, what's wrong with that?
When we have so many homeless in our country, why don't we clamp down on something like this. Nothing wrong with that. I disagree with this author's take.
29
When we forget the past, we are bound to repeat our mistakes. Whenever the topic of immigrants come up in casual conversation, I ask ‘what about the St. Louis?’ 99 out of a hundred times people look at me like I’ve lost my mind as even grade schoolers know that hardly anyone came to the US via St. Louis?. No, MS St. Louis was a ship filled with Jews, 901 of them trying to escape the Nazis and they were turned away from every country in our hemisphere. Further, our countrymen who most opposed allowing the desperate people on the ship to disembark had a slogan “America First”.
It’s thought that all 900 were killed by the Nazis via America.
1
I hold a US passport still but self identify as Mexican now. I married a beautiful woman with a family that still talks to one another. We share every meal when we are together in Mexico. This nation and idea of America has been dying for years, but it died before our very eyes to the horror of the world in the senate a few weeks ago. Now, the American Dream is dead unless you win a rigged election. Then for those four years, a single American gets to try on their self serving dream. There is no common good. Democratic ideals are a joke - just ask any senator. Even baseball has been tainted by cheating and corruption. Until we change from our selfish existence into one where we can recognize long term public interests, common good and justice for all regardless of financial status, and cooperative economies instead of reckless pursuits at profit as we destroy the world we are all swirling around a toilet bowl we once known as America. My heart weeps for the republic and the men and women that built this once great nation. They understood what the idea and nation of America represented - we took it for granted.
5
@Peter Fitzgerald And yet the Mexican dream is to sneak over the border into the US.
3
If 'tradition' is the driving force, America should open its borders up, allow the poorest, the most fanatically religious people ready to dominate local population (herd or worse them). The same 'tradition' would serve as an argument for flying confederate flags and getting in modern slaves to do the hard work. Tradition schmadition.
There is a better argument to be made about requiring an educated and uneducated workforce. With 100 million checks Unc Sam sends to Americans per month, there is a case to be made that US borns want only some jobs, not all jobs. A third of Americans are dependent for one reason or another, and another trillion and a half is spent on 'jobs programs' each year including defense. The smart people in America no longer want to take risk and produce goods and services, they want to pursue financial churn/ loot jobs that leverage their talents into super wealth. No one wants to pick tomatoes, make hotel beds up, weld aluminum, machine a part. The economy's need for skill may be a better argument.
3
The author does not make a good case why it is OK to admit people to the US knowing full well that they will become a public charge.
43
This biased article neglects to mention that the US Supreme Court supported this policy in a recent decision. "Public charge" has been a part of the INA for many years and has received bi-partisan support since its inception. Attempting to place blame on Trump for this is ridiculous. He is only enforcing a law that has been on the books for years.
26
How can it be "Un-American", when Americans voted for it and are joyusly cheering it on? I don't think "American Values" are the same, any more.
10
The United States is the only country in the world that doesn't impose a means test as a legal prerequisite for immigration.
32
Typical from a California liberal. No we should not bringing in people that we have to support with our tax dollars. Yes, making immigration decisions based on the skills needed by the country makes sense. Were there poor unskilled laborers with Nobel laureate children admitted in times past? Probably, but we’d be increasing the probability of it occurring by admitting demonstrably, smart, educated people, to fill needed positions.
28
The article is premised on false assumptions. The professor waxes nostalgic for all of our ancestors, but forgets that when they arrived a century or more ago, there were no benefits and subsidies, so that is not an apt reference.
Also, it is not a "wealth" test. It is a subsistence test. And it's hardly cruel to want immigrants who will not be an indefinite burden.
And finally, the real problem is the immense stress of 15,000,000 illegals, all of whom crowd hospitals and use extremely costly benefits, which reduces the amount available for legal immigrants. All of these immigration crises stem from the illegals.
One would expect more knowledge and more caution, from a professor.
33
Once again we have an opinion piece here that equates anyone who opposes illegal ("undocumented") immigration to being a racist bigot, and who thinks "immigrants want to take American jobs." No, no, no. I oppose illegal immigration, but I certainly know all immigrants want is what all of us want: secure lives with at least some opportunity. Unfortunately, the United States is full - we have too many people for our environment to support. We are taking habitat for other living things and driving many non-human living things into extinction, or close to it. This is deeply immoral, and Dr. Ramirez does not even consider this. Diverse natural ecosystems are crumbling in this country. While measures such as wildlife corridors and more public transport are critical to help our environment, the one thing will improve ALL environmental concerns in this country is to lower our population. We need to just to enforce our immigration law, but lower legal immigrant numbers - to something well below the over one million we admit per year.
31
“a merit-based immigration system may appear fair and practical” because it is. Do it.
33
The ideology for open borders is so strong that one can defend it with a naked contradiction and expect no one to notice.
(1) "There’s a persistent myth that 'foreigners' simply want to... go on welfare."
(2) "The Migration Policy Institute estimates that the new rule could prompt some 23 million noncitizens and their U.S. citizen family members not to apply for or to withdraw from public benefit programs."
25
The rule doesn’t go far enough; no one who costs that taxpayers one single penny in anti-poverty programs should be admitted. If we presently host 23 million foreigners who are, or have been, on welfare, that speaks to the idiocy of our immigration rules. Not one of them should have been admitted.
That “merit” based immigration is even controversial is astonishing; virtually every other country uses a variant on such a system.
As far as Americans are concerned, immigration IS a “transaction”, where those here already and paying the bills get to decide who they will permit to join them. And the question is simple: will the country directly benefit from any individual immigrant? It simply doesn’t matter if his Aunt, the MD, qualified.
And, no, the “safety net”, aka handouts, does not “enrich” the country; by definition, it impoverishes the taxpayers. Of old, immigrant families and communities attended to their own, without sticking their hands in the taxpayers’ pockets. That is how it should be. Because owe nothing for foreigners.
We shouldn’t be trying to “integrate (criminals) into society”; we should be sending them home. And if foreigners can’t pull their own weight, they should not be permitted to come at all.
Our duty as Americans is to Americans, starting with not sending the taxpayers the bills to subsidize foreigners, often criminals. If an immigrant immediately benefits us and won’t cost us anything, welcome. If not, our needs come first.
22
Proponents of the wealth test who believe their forebears did not take anything from the federal government are ignorant of the The Homestead Act. This allowed settlers to acquire 10% of public land for free from the federal government.
4
Lax immigration laws of the past are not an argument for lax immigration laws today. We used to settle disputes by shootout in the town square at high noon in the olden days...probably not a good idea in 2020.
24
Times change. We don’t ride horses anymore. Just so, in light of the 10 million undocumented aliens that have entered the country, it is well past time to consider whether immigrants are going to add value to our country, our culture. This does not mean rejecting real refugees. But it does mean we can’t just allow a flood of immigrants to come.
18
Most of us care about our fellow citizens as well as about those in poverty or areas of war and high crime in other countries.
But there is no magic wand.
You can be good hearted, or a good hearted fool.
You have to be wise enough to both care and be rational. This article reflects the good hearted fool approach.
We have to have reasonable and rational rules, laws and requirements for entry.
It's the only wise way in an imperfect world with limited resources. And it's what most other countries follow.
11
Accurate picture of immigrant's values, contributing many times over whichever cost they may incur initially. Having the gall to deny the unique qualities any and all immigrants bring, documented or not, is petty and stupid. Does America realize that, being the richest country in the world, due to the diligence of immigrants, it commits a grave injustice by taking, from poor countries, the best they have to offer, their human talent? Why so much arrogance on our part, to deny newcomers what we, also immigrants, have taken for granted all along? No humility here? Are we trying cruel bigotry 'a la Stephen Miller and Donald Trump', and see if we can declare our 'false' superiority as a birth right? How shallow, and greedy, can we get? Folks, it's time to seek solidarity, in trying to integrate all comers to this society, give strength in unity, and hope that, eventually, this may become a true social democracy, where the current inequities are removed. And demanding that our worth be shown by how much we carry is a joke. Can't we see that our differences are what makes us the richer, more tolerant, and able to transcend our ego, celebrate humanity?
1
I always find it awkward when liberals adopt conservative dog whistles like "un-American". It always begs the question of who gets to define who's 'American' or 'American enough'. Inevitably, the explicit or implied answer to that is, 'People who agree with me.' Trump does this a lot.
America is not a particular time period, and 'Americans' aren't only the people who adhere to the norms or beliefs of one time period. America needed large masses of unskilled immigrants during its rapid industrialization periods, but it needs fewer of those now. There have also been a number of times in America's history when immigration was greatly curtailed from its peak flows. It's not 'American' or 'un-American' to focus immigration quotas on higher skilled, more economically-contributive applicants. It may be that this is the best policy to support an aging population and the less fortunate with large government transfer payments as many Democrats are advocating.
Certainly it's not 'un-American' to consider prioritizing a higher-skilled immigrant class during a time of rapid technological change and automation that is threatening to obsolete many low-skilled job categories.
19
Compared to all other advanced countries, the ‘welfare’ benefits in America are virtually nonexistent - for everyone. So the whole premise of the argument, on both sides, is false.
1
Although I disagree with it, this wealth test is quintessentially American. It is abundantly clear that money - making more and losing less - is all this Administration and this corporatized Senate care about.
1
There is an element in America society that blames all of their real and perceived problems on everyone but the person they see in the mirror in the morning. They adopt and develop theories about all of these groups and how allowing them to be in "their country" will ruin everything.
Social media has given them an loud voice with the impression that there is a huge portion of the population that holds their beliefs. Trump is another person who blames all of his failures and shortcoming on the actions of others - hence he connects with these people.
To be sure, every group that has come into a different country has been and is being vilified and dehumanized by the indigenous majority. The reaction of society is nasty and brutal until the dehumanized group somehow joins the mainstream.
Of course, if you are wealthy enough you can buy your way into America and we'll even gloss over your past if necessary to get your skills and money.
Americans, most of our problems are our own and blaming others won't stop the problem. But, we will continue to blame and dehumanize the other to make ourselves more important and "better."
Please stop considering social media as legitimate news. It is just propaganda from those who think they own the nation. We-the-People are better than that.
Trump is only the most visible symptom of the deeper problem in America. Time to deal with the symptom as the root-cause. Fear and hate are the mind-killers.
3
I am no fan of President Trump, but on this file I have to say he is both correct and politically canny. This issue is going to be kryptonite for Democrats in November, if they don't shut up.
Prospective Immigrants to progressive Canada are vetted in a points system. Proficiency in French/English, education, money in the bank, family established and self-sufficient in Canada, arranged employment, and age are all taken into consideration. Expensive illness is a minus, as is a lack of traits that promote self-sufficiency and employment. So is old age (you can't come to Canada at 65 and start claiming benefits).
If you don't get the points, you don't come. Sorry.
Why is that wrong? The U.S. can't be the welfare system for the whole planet. In fact, letting in people who claim benefits will undermine the already-frayed safety net programs the left advocates. When the Ellis Island immigrants came, there was no social safety net. Is that what we want to go back to?
By embracing "open borders," the Democratic Party is falling into the trap of knee-jerk opposition to Trump, and will get him re-elected while undermining its own values.
This stuff doesn't sell in the Midwest, or anywhere else but California and the Acela corridor.
Keep it up, and get ready for four more years of this awful president.
30
I’m in the Acela corridor. I can actually see the Acela from my office! Yet, I fully support the administration’s stand on immigration, and am only frustrated that they still haven’t addressed visa abuse.
Suggest the Democrats don’t assume support on this issue outside their own echo chamber.
20
Families are divided because some members left their home country. It is not our responsibility to unify them.
30
"The New Wealth Test for Immigrants Is Un-American"
"If the goal is to assure that immigrants are self-sufficient and productive, the immigration service could look to Sweden"
4
What we used to be and where we are now are two different things.
In fact, reaching that far back the expectation was that you would come and build something because there were no social safety nets like we have today.
The idea that people can come into our country and get taken care of by the American taxpayer is ludicrous and that is what is un-American.
The USA is not a charity. We are a nation that needs people who can carry their own weight, that can offer something. Not people that need a handout.
16
What we used to be and where we are now are two different things.
In fact, reaching that far back the expectation was that you would come and build something because there were no social safety nets like we have today.
The idea that people can come into our country and get taken care of by the American taxpayer is ludicrous and that is what is un-American.
The USA is not a charity. We are a nation that needs people who can carry their own weight, that can offer something. Not people that need a handout.
4
There's a difference between refugees and immigrants. of course there should be limits and regulations on immigration.
But we also should be kind and charitable to people fleeing horrible conditions.
I don't have answers here, but I know separating families and putting kids in cages is not a good look.
2
"The Migration Policy Institute estimates that the new rule could prompt some 23 million noncitizens and their U.S. citizen family members not to apply for or to withdraw from public benefit programs. This figure includes 4.7 million adults and 7.6 million children, all of whom are citizens."
Those shameful figure simply reinforce the problem of people arriving here unable to support themselves. Those 23 million non-citizens are consuming resources paid for by, and intended for, US citizens.
California has an acute housing shortage. Gee, could it be because of the millions of illegal aliens, or are those millions living in cardboard huts in dry canyons between neighborhoods? Deport the illegal aliens in California and there would be plenty of housing and public assistance for American citizens, including our many homeless veterans.
Stealing goods and services intended for our citizens is immoral; enforcing rules intended to benefit our citizens is American. Charity starts at home.
22
The writer believes immigrants "deserve" welfare and free healthcare to make them more productive immigrants.
If there were ever a concept more infuriating, Im yet to see it.
Unbelievable.
Trump put this new rule in place. Would Hillary have?
What about Bernie?
Go to his website. He wants to close detention centers, abolish ICE, abolish this rule, end deportations, expand DACA, and give welfare access to illegal immigrants.
Go ahead. Tell me "vote blue no matter who".
20
What is, unfortunately, very American is the changing of immigration rules as the current generation sees fit. The huddled masses of Italians, Eastern Europeans and Jews became too much to bear by the mid-1920s apparently, and new laws were passed designed to stop them from entering. Once the Chinese were no longer needed to help build the railroads, they were famously excluded from entering. Family unification is a 50 year-old policy designed to help families of European immigrants attract more of their kind to America. That well has apparently run dry. I guess it’s time to cement it over.
1
When you have mass homelessness impacting cities across this country, one must step back and reassess our priorities as to accepting more immigrants into an already overburdened and dysfunctional system of social services.
14
Not surprising. The United States is the representative capitalist country and Trump the archetypal oligarch. The seed becomes the flower. It continues to strike me as odd that Americans are surprised by any of this. Private prisons, failing public schools, crumbling infrastructure. It's all to be expected. What amazes me is the ability of the NY Times to talk out of both sides of its mouth and call it balanced journalism.
1
Actually only one of the three things I agree with Trump on.
11
In the area of immigration alone, the current administration has now implemented any number of “laws” that circumvent Congress, some covertly and some brazenly, most recently this new twist on the public charge rule, effectively establishing a so-called “merits-based” immigration scheme, leaving unchecked adjudicators the discretion to determine who is likely to become a public charge in the future (and thus, ineligible for a green card). Be clear: we have long had a public charge rule requiring family-based immigrants to show that they are not likely to become a public charge, with US sponsors submitting enforceable affidavits of support. What's new under this rule is the introduction of highly dubious criteria to determine who is likely to become a public charge in the future - criteria that the president’s current coterie favors. No surprise, educated white people who speak English are favored, others are not. Supporters of the president’s immigration policies - from the travel bans, to the attack on asylum, to caging children and the new public charge rule - who take offense at charges of racism need to start reading the fine print and own it.
1
Forty percent of fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants, or their children or grandchildren. In many cases, the original immigrants weren't educated, didn't speak English, and arrived with dollars, if not pennies, to their names. Sometimes, they literally had nothing, having borrowed the money to pay for their travel to the US, which they set about repaying when they arrived. Most often, they came from agrarian backgrounds and had no "skills" that were transferable to an industrial economy. They were push cart vendors, garment workers, auto workers, factory workers. They owned diners, bakeries, coffee shops. They built these occupations and businesses into successful ventures, sometimes large and vast ones. Sometimes in one generation, sometimes over many. And if their means remained modest, their children became educated, became doctors, dentists, teachers, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs. They all paid taxes, at rates far higher than billionaires do today. They contributed to society. They built this nation. That's my family's story. Push cart vendors. Garment workers. Factory workers. All paying taxes. And the next generation? All educated, most with graduate degrees. Tax paying, law abiding, contributing members of society. They were from a place where the immigrants, while European, were regarded as not "white". The only difference between these immigrants and native born Americans is opportunity. If we lose them, we lose what made this nation great.
1
Two countries where I looked into moving (Canada and Australia) also require a certain amount of wealth to be possessed by the applicant. This is not uncommon today.
To use the "but back in the day" argument does not meet the challenges of today's world.
I say this as the offspring of poor immigrants who came to the U.S.
13
Three of my grandparents immigrated to the U.S. All of them were fine Americans. One of them served in the Mexican Expedition and WWI. Their two sons served in WWII. All their children got four-year college degrees, as did all seven of their grandchildren. My brother is a law professor at Stanford University.
None of this would have come to pass if Trump's wealth test had been in place.
When i got married i applied for a green card. My wife didnot make enough money to sponsor me so a friend did. She had to guarantee to the government that i would not be a public charge. This was 30 years ago.
So i dont understand all this commotion.
166
@ianmacrostie The big deal is that you would likely not have been able to immigrate under these rules – even with the affadavit! As the article states, one needs to now have both an affadavit of support (if you + spouse have few resources) and ALSO make 250% above poverty line to get the green card.
10
@ianmacrostie The rules have changed, 30 years ago is one thing, I know, I sponsored my wife when it was easy.
5
@immigration11
I'm curious why you think that this is a big deal. Should there be no preconditions to legal immigration? Do taxpayers get no say as to who our social services are distributed to, with American citizens being at the top of the list?
7
I believe we need to rethink this immigration issue in terms of people already here who need assistance. Some need housing assistance, some healthcare assistance and child-care assistance while some need all of these and more.
Isn't it wiser to put our own house in order and provide assistance to these people before making the world right for others? I'm all for spreading our largess beyond our borders, but I want our own people, whatever their ethnic, racial or religious background to find relief first.
170
@Glenn Thomas
Best kind of relief is for everyone who works a 40 hour a week job to make enough money to pay their bills. That is not happening right now.
More people with more money = greater spending. A stronger economy for all.
3
@Glenn Thomas My AmCit sisters have children who are 1/2 Dominican and 1/2 West Indian. The kids are US born, US citizens. And because of their complexions, they are frequently harassed by those who want “our own people” to be helped first. Newsflash: they are “our own people”.
2
Under the Trump regime’s new immigration rules, my grandparents wouldn’t have been allowed to become citizens. All 4 were dirt poor farmers who came here penniless. They worked hard to succeed in menial jobs, but had absolutely nothing. One of my grandmothers was illiterate.
What happened to them and their kids? One set of grandparents ran a restaurant. The other had a fruit and liquor store. Among their kids were a CPA, a dentist, a computer programmer, and other successful Americans. Their grandchildren include 3 lawyers, an engineer, and other professionals.
But we never would have succeeded as Americans if something like the Trump regime existed 100 years ago. That’s why the wealth test and other changes Trump and his immigration restrictionist aid Stephen Miller are so fundamentally unAmerican.
Trump and his congressional followers need to lose badly in November so these changes can be reversed.
116
When my grandparents moved here as youngsters at the turn of the last century, there was work for laborers. My grandmother was, of course, a seamstress. My grandfathers did other kinds of work, none of it requiring a particularly good command of English although eventually all learned to read and write in English.
Today our men in New England and in the South are killing themselves with drug overdoses because they have lost their old manufacturing jobs and can't seem to retrain for anything requiring technology. And that's all there is.
In their great wisdom, American companies relocated their plants to China, whose corruption, cost cutting, and lack of hygiene have resulted in inferior products, from brittle rivets to metal-tainted toothpaste to moldy plasterboard to drugs that don't work.
Our medicines are manufactured in China, God help us.
And we want more unskilled labor to come?
It isn't 1908 anymore.
118
When crops lie unpicked, lawns unmowed, and food plants idle for lack of workers, you may rethink your view.
14
@Demosthenes
Not even the Democrats can repeal the law of supply and demand. So if these jobs go unfilled the wages for these workers will increase until they are filled, or they'll be replaced by machines which will create more jobs.
I'll also note that if we did away with the welfare state there would be millions of low skilled people available to take these jobs.
25
Given the current state of this administration, our shattering government and bellicose politics, I'd move to Canada in a minute if I could; but I can't. I don't have enough financial assets to move there so they don't want me horning in on their healthcare. Sad for me, but I understand. "There ain't no free lunch."
11
Most of the poorer immigrants to this country, with or without legal status, are motivated by a desire to see their children have a better life. They work hard at low paying jobs and strongly promote education to their children. These children, through hard work and academic accomplishments are a significant contribution for the future of our country. We have enough resources to invest in this important strategy by assisting these families when necessary. Sadly many native citizens do not seek to improve themselves through education and are quick to blame others for their own failures. Should we discontinue subsidizing many of our southern states because they are negative dollar contributers to our government?
3
My wife just became a U.S. citizen on Thursday. I support her financially. To me it would have been wrong to expect other Americans to support us just so she could become a citizen.
234
@God What makes you believe that we support immigrants financially, aside from the screeching of Trump and Hannity?
12
@Dan
From having been thru the lengthy green card and citizenship process with my wife for the last six years and seeing all the loopholes we could have exploited firsthand.
20
@E
"the NYT articles indicating that millions of immigrants are currently receiving public assistance as their primary source of income."
This is a figment of your imagination.
7
Why does everyone pussy foot around the reality. It is about racism and religious bias. Trump knows it, his supporters know it and his opponents should know it.
4
@Disillusioned
If it makes you feel any better, and I’m thinking it won’t, we don’t need anymore people poor or otherwise from: Norway or England or anywhere. Trying to make what is a pure issue of numbers, about racism is a smoke screen for an open borders agenda. The US has plenty of people of every type from everywhere. By any environmental standard we are very over populated and need to get our house in order before we let anymore people from anywhere in. If you can’t justify your argument by the numbers you shouldn’t use ad hominem name calling.
10
If we are overcrowded and can't accept anymore people "poor or otherwise" why restrict immigration based upon wealth or lack thereof?
There are so many things wrong with this argument it is hard to know where to start, but comparing today's immigrants to immigrants hundreds of years ago is the most glaring.
When people immigrated to the United States in say the 1700s or 1800s (or even early 1900s) there was little in the way of government (ie taxpayer) provided services. Schools, roads, healthcare, food, etc... immigrants were on their own. Most became farmers and/or worked in factories, depending on the time period.
Then there is the modern issue of requiring financial means to self sustain for new immigrants. Of course, there is! Even Canada has this requirement! It is illogical and financially irresponsible to bring in people who have no cash reserves and will immediately be a burden on our already fragile system.
302
I believe Australia has a means test for immigrants as well.
25
@Kate H. I'm a US citizen and former permanent resident of Spain. I'm currently a permanent resident in Mexico. Spain and to my knowledge other countries in the EU have means tests, requirements that the immigrant has health insurance, and proof of no criminal record. As to Mexico - it requires a minimum income and a an arranged residence (rented or owned).
Means testing immigrants for the US is nothing more than using the same standards applied in the rest of the world. I find it more than a little absurd that opponents of these requirements want to allow immigrants from Mexico and other Central American countries that Mexico would not admit itself.
41
@Kate H. A few years ago I considered emigrating to Canada, but was not eligible, even though I have an advanced degree, would have been able to find work in my field, and could have met all the requirements but one.
Because I was over 50 years old and they don't want more people in their healthcare system who are over 50. It would be too expensive for them. The cost issue is practical. We do need to consider requirements. Not like Trump is doing, but something like other countries with a social safety net do.
When some of our grandparents emigrated here, it was a very different country. We want a diverse mix from many places. But we need to be practical. Canada's emigration policies are something we might consider. They have a healthy diversity in Canada and a stable economy.
10
Articles like this one went a long way towards getting Trump elected - AND articles like this one may get Trump re-elected. For your information, none of my immigrant ancestors received any kind of welfare - no food stamps - no rent vouchers - no school lunches - no Medicaid. Even today, millions of American citizens have to choose between paying rent or paying healthcare insurance or even having kids at all. Doctor Ramírez’ arguments could have the effect of keeping Trump in office; in keeping a GOO dominated Senate and GOP dominated state houses.
18
@Maureen
You are correct and none of the Democrats understand this. Remember “Build the Wall”? That wasn’t the slogan because polls showed it appealed to 5% of the voters. It appealed to a broad swath of Americans in both parties - even if not to either party’s leaders. Read the comments on this article!
8
I support this test vehemently. I would be open to other tests, like education in a specialized field, or some other special ability.
America has the highest rate of poverty in the first world. Tens of millions of our citizens need help. Taking more poor people is not responsible.
259
You think it’s appropriate that a man born with golden spoon in his mouth is the one to make this decision? This is hatred of the poor - plain and simple. If he could kick natural born U.S. citizens out of the country for being poor, he would.
18
@KR Give it a rest...it has nothing to do with Trump. It is the sane thing to do. The far left is no longer sane.
25
@MM
The far left is no longer extant.
8
When our "great-grandparents" arrived in the US there were no social programs like there are now, and people were on their own. It was more of a Wild West country with much less social assistance required by law. You're deliberately omitting this detail.
9
What’s wrong with working? My grandparents were immigrants and they worked. Vietnamese who came in after the war worked. Working gives our lives meaning. I’m still working. It should be required unless we are truly unable.
6
I grew up in Canada and immigrated to the United States. Pretty much all of these changes mirror what already exists in Canada.
So my very white, Ivy League educated American wife had to prove she was desirable to move back to Canada with me. She had to speak one of both of the official languages, demonstrate she had a well paying job (in her case, a specialist in internal medicine), and I had to pledge, based on my provable income and assets, that she would NEVER be a drain on welfare programs.
This has nothing to do with White Supremacy. It's a sensible approach to managing who becomes a permanent resident.
413
@Matt--Thanks--In order to establish residence in Ireland I: submitted an audited financial statement proving I would not be a 'burden" on the State or use State services, proof of Private health Insurance, secured accommodations, Police check from the US , etc. This is required i almost all European countries for foreign nationals unless you have been approved for asylum Cheers
150
@Matt
1.That's a misleading example, you can sponsor your wife to immigrate to Canada to be with you.
2. The US also requires citizens and residents to sponsor their family members, these new "public charge" rules are designed to deny people entry *despite* being sponsored by family members.
3. Canada is not always right on these issues, baring disabled family members from immigrating is both discriminatory and unbelievably inhumane.
15
I agree with you in regards to those people who want to move to this country “just because”. What about those who are fleeing danger and persecution in unstable countries? Are we no longer to be a beacon of hope for those who face certain death?
16
My parents came to America 90 years ago. It was a very different time.
1) Most important, the crisis of warming had not begun.
Now, it is beginning, as Australia, Norfolk, south Florida, and the Southwest are discovering.
The problem is not to expand population to augment industrial growth, but to shrink it to reduce industrial and consumer pollutants.
2) Massive immigration does indeed shift jobs away from the traditional working class to newcomers, in spite of sentimental liberal doctrine.
It is an oblique mechanism, involving shifting production from the Midwest to China (for example), with imports paid for by the technically advanced output of the new industrial heartland, the Blue Coasts, the destination of most immigrants.
There are issues of justice, e.g, compensation to those whose jobs were taken by the policy of globalization. No such compensation was paid for the devastation wrought by this bipartisanism.
Perhaps more important is the issue of social stability. Not only has globalization destroyed the jobs of the largely white traditional working class: It has sent those jobs mainly to non-white countries, especially China.
And it has brought in vast numbers of non-Anglo immigrants: more than half of population growth during the four decades of globalization has been caused by immigration.
If one wanted to nurture white racism this would be the way to do it.
Instead, we need to work out an intelligent and non-inflammatory immigration policy.
5
This story reflects the current Administration as well as other Administration's mission statements. What it truly ignores is the crux of the problem. The problem has existed since the beginning of mankind and remains the same today. Most people immigrate because they can not survive in their homeland. The reasons are poor government, wars, famines, fires, floods, climate change or tribalism us against them. Most people never chose to simply leave their home, family, friends, and language without the powerful drivers stated above. Without changing the motivators people will always opt to survive.
1
Every other country has these requirements for immigrants, but when the US does it's "white supremacy"? Give me a break.
169
@Sue When he requirements are intended to keep out people of color, yes.
6
@April When Democrats are known to have no rational ideas for how to improve the country and no viable candidates, they resort to calling everyone else a racist.
4
@April That's pretty racist that you think only people of color would fail this test. As an immigrant and POC that hopes to one day get their green card, I take great offense to the notion that I'm inherently unable to provide for myself.
2
I applied for my green card in Europe more than 30 years ago. I had to show I have enough funds in my bank account, and also undergo a physical exam.
What is exactly the point of this article?
27
Some of the criteria used to judge immigrants: wealth, skills, education, nationality are common to almost every country. And these criteria have changed over the millennia as society has changed. The "American Dream" worked for a long time. But neither it nor society kept pace with changes in the world. Things are very different now than they were in the 1950's. Our needs as a nation have changed. The one thing that has not kept up is how we deal with immigration. It is pretty much the same now as it was in 1850. But our needs have changed. We no longer need brute labor. What we have been after is highly educated workers. My main fault with both parties is that the dialogue has not been done on talking about how we need to change. Both sides have VERY different ideas. Liberals want everyone to have the and conservatives want low income and uneducated to immigrate so they can work at low wages with little opportunity to grow. I am a liberal but I believe in this wealth test, and I would add education to the list also. We can not just let anyone in without a reason and purpose anymore. Citizens should come first. A greater concern is why people want to come here? Is it jobs and educational opportunities? But even before that question I ask why have a huge family when you know there is little to no oportunity in your country? Why have a family when you know you can not support them? For this I blame every single group that is against family planning.
13
If the US is going to have an economic engine to pay for all the progressives presents under Bernie's Christmas tree, we will need the best and brightest in this country.
So, a PhD from India who will build a business & create 100's of jobs or someone with minimum wages skills who will drain the safety net?
Easy choice.
20
When Ellis Island was operating, when we were recruiting immigrants, we screened out - and sent home - those we thought might become a “public charge”. And that was BEFORE this country had taxpayer funded safety net programs that have only existed since the 1960’s.
Before the 1960’s, immigrants and their families who survived and prospered were a huge benefit to the country while those who were unsuccessful suffered and died, without ever becoming a costly burden on the country.
“Public charge” rules have been very American and make more sense today than ever.
19
I thank Professor Ramirez for reminding me why I left the academy. This form of “discrimination” is as American (or British, or Canadian, or French, or Kazakh) as apple pie. Why?
When my ancestors came here, the main test for “getting in” was a health exam to check for TB and other diseases. Then you were, well, by and large on your own. Hopefully you had family, or a church, or someone to help. But life here then was rough, and the government just wasn’t really here to help unless you count the poor farm. (I don’t.) Unlike today you sank or swam, and while many did all right, some people sank.
Today, the family safety net has been in some respects replaced by the government safety net. Just as family resources were finite a century ago, so are government resources. Importing — often illegally — millions of unskilled immigrants serves mostly the 1% at the cost of lower income wage earners. Supply, meet demand.
Yet, people like my highly educated niece had to wait 20 years for legal entry to the US. Once earning her green card, she promptly found a six-figure job at the headquarters of a company everyone in the world knows.
Our immigration priorities need fixing, and that will sometimes exclude some people, just as we excluded some people ages ago. The sooner we understand this reality instead of making disingenuous arguments of racism and discrimination.
28
These programs didn't exist when my family came to the United States. Nor did my family receive land as part of any Homestead Act, though they did gradually move out west where land was cheaper and more readily available, for those willing to make the journey and live near the frontier.
There was a time when the US was happy to take in destitute immigrants (like my own ancestors), and that was when the population was small compared to the territory claimed by the government. The interest then was settling all the territory the government had claimed, to make that claim more permanent, and to tap the vast resources of the west.
The US today is a very different sort of country. Our population is massive, our economy is post-industrial. The era of ravenous resource exploitation, and the need to settle the land in ever-greater numbers, is long behind us.
The same European countries held up as economic and social examples by Democrats also have very strict financial requirements for anyone seeking to immigrate legally, in fact by comparison, the US's immigration policy is extraordinarily lax, even with these changes.
The one exception is refugees, who are exempt from qualifications. It was this exemption for millions of refugees years ago that caused the current rightwing backlash in Europe, which still has not abated in Germany, France, Austria, or elsewhere.
Bear this in mind: even otherwise liberal people tend to shift rightward on immigration issues. Tread carefully.
44
@Joel: I was a democrat. But that party's continual apologies for illegal immigration has finally pushed me over the brink.
I've never read so many opinion pieces pandering for illegal immigrants as in the past year, even though we've been inundated with illegals to the tune of ONE MILLION annually! I'm annoyed with those who follow the illogic of this and other editorials on the subject.
The US already has more immigrants than any other nation. Give us (the taxpayers) a break!
2
Today, the Citizenship and Immigration Service begins enforcing laws passed by Congress to deny permanent legal status to legal immigrants considered likely to become a public charge. The “public charge” provision isn’t new. It has been part of U.S. immigration law for more than a century. The Immigration Act of 1882 was in effect when the Statue of Liberty was dedicated in New York harbor in 1886. It blocked the entry of “persons likely to become a public charge.”
The public charge provision of the 1882 act was carried forward to the Immigration and Nationality Act. It declared "any alien likely at any time to become a public charge" as inadmissible to the country and those who have received public benefits within their first five years in the United States as deportable. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 raised standards for sponsors of immigrants, requiring them to show greater financial capacity and obligating them to reimburse the government for means-tested public benefits received by the immigrant they sponsor.
Instead of criticizing the Citizenship and Immigration Service for enforcing the immigration laws, opponents should urge Congress to change immigration laws.
18
Enough with the fiction that it’s a “wealth test”, it’s a “public charge” test. I’m also tired of the Scandinavian approach to all issues. The USA is never going to be like Sweden or Denmark, it just can’t happen given our size, scale, place in the world, etc.
27
We can't help immigrants or even ourselves if we bankrupt ourselves.
When my parents emigrated from Europe after WWII there were groups here from the old country who gave them a helping hand to get on their feet, A job, an affordable place to live, someone to talk to who knows firsthand what they are going thru, and sponsoring them .
I don't think there is so much of that going on nowadays. There should be. People helping people instead of leaving it to the Government.n and complaining the Government is not doing enough.
23
That sharing works only when there is something left to share with others. A family working six days a week in Mecca, CA makes $1,400 and the rent on their mobil home is $900. They belong to a share group but it leaves them unable to pay for basics. No health care either.
1
This is probably the only issue on which I agree with Trump. We already have plenty of lower-skilled workers and illegal immigration will always supply more. Why should we not allow in more highly skilled and educated workers as opposed to lower skilled workers who are very likely to work off the books and pay little or nothing in taxes? Why doesn't the American far left get it into their heads that American taxpayers can't and won't keep supporting non-citizens, their anchor babies, and their indigent relatives?
62
It’s the highly skilled and educated immigrants who are taking jobs from Americans, not the unskilled. Just look at the tech industry where immigrants are hired over Americans because the can be paid less.
2
I love New Zealand. I would love to become a permanent resident. Unfortunately, that would take a million dollars. Yes, that’s one million dollars to invest in New Zealand’s economy. Most people comply with this requirement by buying a $1,000,000 house.
Every country in the world vets prospective immigrants to insure that they will not end up on the dole.
69
In 1891 my Father’s grandfather applied for citizenship. It took seven years for it to be granted in 1898. There were no public programs. He supported his family w grit and determination. It’s a different time today. We need programs and a heart to continue growing our immigrant population to remind us how this great country welcomes those who strive for the same things my Great grandfather did.
8
There’s no reason we should let people come here just to be a burden.
I don’t have any problem with not letting immigrants use public assistance.
In fact it would be bizarre to me if they could use it, and even more bizarre if they expected to get it.
68
Has anyone tried to immigrate to another country? Don’t you need $250,000 and proof of a full-time job to move to Germany? It’s the way it is for every country, isn’t it?
12
America is many different things that change over time.
If reducing immigration keeps the next right wing authoritarian out of the presidency and the GOP a minority in congress, that is an acceptable trade off to me.
13
I'm fine with points based immigration; most developed countries have it and enforce it.
Family chain migration is another mess. I recall all my foreign MBA peers getting a job greencard and immediately putting their parents on the USA immigration list. The goal was their parents would be off the list by the time they were sick and elderly, could live in USA, never speak English, and be on Medicare/aid, hospital care, and other welfare after not contributing a cent nor living here when young or healthy. What a ploy.
Family chain migration to USA is out of control. Millions and millions of needy people on the waitlist. Many granted entry each year.
99
@SamRan The parents could not have qualified for Medicare unless they worked here for 10 years and paid into it (or bought into it under special circumstances that equate to working and paying into the Trust funds)
10
@Dennis Byron People without the ability to pay walk into hospital emergency rooms in the U.S. every day and get free health care. They cannot be turned away. They may not be able to receive long term treatments without insurance or the ability to pay, but Medicare or not the cost of those 'free' services are ultimately paid for by the same working people who pay for everything. Utilization of high-cost emergency room services for people with a sniffle adds considerable cost to a health care system with spiraling, unsustainable costs.
29
@SamRan - MBA "foreign" candidates are graduate students. In order to be admitted to their MBA programs and get a student visa, they needed to show their ability to pay for their studies, fluency in English and have bachelor's degree. Given their background and the requirements that they must have passed to study in the United States, it is unlikely that they are/would be a burden to this country. I doubt that the majority are bringing their poor/elderly/ undocumented/ low income parents to the United to try to benefit from social services that the know their parents would not be eligible to receive (such as Medicare - which is only available to those persons who have contributed to the system).
I hope someone at the top of Elizabeth Warren's staff is reading these comments. Virtually all the most recommended comments here by one of the most liberal sub-populations in the country actually prefer Trump's policy to hers.
I've supported Ms.Warren from the beginning, and still do, but I'm close to throwing in the towel. Despite her many very smart policy proposals she's sinking like a rock, and I'm pretty sure the reason is that she never opens her mouth without adamantly advocating for illegal aliens, transgenders, and other groups too small to swing an election.
I don't fault her for supporting those people, but, please, Senator, at least pretend to be concerned with the people who actually vote.
77
@Green Tea Well said. This point cannot be underscored enough. I've never been a single-issue voter, but I cannot see myself voting for Bernie or Warren if they do not modify their platform to address this reality.
3
I’m as progressive as they get, but I grudgingly admit that conservatives have a valid point here. I also think that their are valid green card holders that are also bogus. Canadian health care workers cross our borders every day and work in our hospitals. Do the shortage of American HC workers even exist anymore? The traitor will get re-elected if Democrats keep this stance, we need to stop pandering to immigrants and take care of our own first. BTW, there are millionaires getting subsidized health care through the ACA, don’t believe me?
36
The policy is merely more in line with the immigration policies of other nations. We cannot manage having the entire world migrate to the U.S. It is not practical. Therefore, we must have limits to how many people can come. Simple as that once you get past all of the sad stories.
59
Friedrich Trump came to America with nothing. There was a time when one could easily see the citation in the record of his entrance into the United States. In the box which was for job skills, it read, "none". He bounced around from place to place until he followed the gold rush to Vancouver Canada, where he was a bouncer and eventually an owner of a house of ill fame.
The Ellis citation is now blocked for easy research via Google and the Ellis Island website. Donald Trump has made it that way, so it can not be easily seen on the web. His family could not have come to America by his standard. His great grandfather fumbled around New York and could not make a living here. He had to go to our neighbor to the North in order to do become a success and at that via questionable means. He doesn't want you to know that.
11
@Bill
Do you know what would have happened if Friedrich Trump hadn’t been successful? With no cost, no burden, on the US, he would have died and his family may have struggled to survive and no one but their church - maybe- would have ever known about it. This was a powerful motivator to immigrants to be successful. For the US, immigration was only beneficial. No downside.
Today, however, with Medicaid, WIC, SNAP, Welfare, Housing assistance, etc., there are huge costs to importing people who become dependents.
10
That fits.
A really wandering op-ed. Working backwards from the end:
1. No one can both seek permanent lawful residence and be undocumented.
2. People on SS and Medicare -- including millions of lawful permanent residents -- paid for them (to varying degrees based on the year they joined years and years ago but 100% for anyone collecting the benefit today who is 77 or under--that is born after 1942). And neither program has anything to do with the public charge rule (which is over century old, not something new)
3. Yes, the number of people affected is a "small sliver of the population" The research at the link suggests that half of lawful permanent residents are on some kind of needs-based government benefit program (and consider the source) but the vast majority of those benefit programs (e.g., Medicaid paying for an anchor birth) are not part of the public charge criteria
4. So -- according to the author -- the "old" rule is being changed (the "old" rule was temporary and no real permanent rule was ever issued following the 1996 law--previous administrations just kicked the can down the road as politicians always do) from
a.) you could not have received HALF your income from a taxpayer funded (see point 2) benefits program for the whole time you have been here legally to
b.) you can not have received ALL your income from a taxpayer funded benefit program for 12 months out of the last 36
Without seeing the math, the rule probably works in favor of chain migration, not against
9
Permanent residency, like citizenship, is a privilege, not a right. There is a flaw in the logic of the writer when she says programs for citizens like Medicare & social security, which citizens contributed to & developed for US citizens, mean that taxpayer supported benefits should be extended to those who enter the US illegally.
A nation has to adapt to changing circumstances. No other developed country has an immigration system which has as many holes as the US system, or as many residents who abuse the system. The US cannot sustain unchecked population growth. It's no longer an uncharted frontier in need of enormous numbers of manual laborers. We need to address the circumstances of our own citizens.
91
Semantic surrealism
“Public charge,” - a coded-policy, not evidence- informed,
created at a given time and place, by
influential individual and systemic stakeholders,
elected and selected, in a range of levels,
who have been, and continue to BE,
personally unaccountable for the policy’s
temporary, and more permanent, harms.
Including its unexpected outcomes. Whether or not
“ caused by,” associated with, or occurring and we
know not WHY.
2
Catherine, the America you write about no long exists.
What many people don't want to face is that America is now a plutocracy. We've moved from "By the people, for the people," to "By the rich and corporations, for the rich and corporations." In that context, nothing can be more American than submitting immigrants to a wealth test.
13
Let us agree that all lands belong to all humans. These national barriers are fairly recent in the history of humans. If there had been a passport/visa system when the first European came to these shores the Natives would probably have returned them back to Europe. So we need a a fairer system that allocates land fairly.
Imagine how crowded Western Europe will be if the residents of the Americas, parts of Africa, Australia and New Zealand were made to return to Europe. Dont forget that immigrants of color were prohibited from coming in until the mid 1960s.
North American can house another 700 million people. I am all for only very limited immigration based on family ties, perhaps only limited to parents. More based on skills and how the immigrants can benefit the country.
But that raises another possibility, another option: should people born here and are detrimental to the welfare of the US be allowed to stay? Should they be deported back to the land of their ancestry? Should birth make citizenship and residence on-reversible as far as citizenship is concerned?
PS: If you agree all land belongs to all humans then should not every landowner pay a land rent towards a central pool that will benefit all humans?
I have no problems with this wealth test. I'm in a unique position where I work where I see hundreds and hundreds of illegal immigrants swarming our public hospitals and medicaid system for what they can get. Take those away and they'd have less incentive to come here with their hands out. However, we'd have fewer illegal immigrants here if the federal government wold clamp also clamp down on employers who continue to hire illegal immigrants,
89
This policy affects legal immigrants.
@Dan , Do you mean people like Donald Trump?
It should be mandatory for all legislators to talk to high school age dreamers who face deportation and all they--and their parents--have done for our country is work hard and be responsible citizens. It is heartbreaking. They don't have much but they contribute to society, and now they face deportation. The wealth idea is brutal.
5
Is it obvious that, like the poll tax, the objective is racial, not economic?
Also, how do you prove self-sufficiency before you get here and have a legal job? Many immigrants are desperately poor but live self-sufficiently in meager circumstances with low-paying jobs.
If you use some kind of poverty test, this law will ensure that all new immigrants who currently do menial labor like crop-picking and house-cleaning will be illegal, which is not what most people say they want on the right side of the spectrum or the left.
1
@LV
"Also, how do you prove self-sufficiency before you get here and have a legal job?"
Want to know why many immigrants from India, China, Japan, and Korea or considered "Model Minorities?" Want to know why as group African immigrants have some of the highest levels of educational attainment and average annual income of any immigrant group?
The Immigrant Act of 1965 specifically prioritized highly educated immigrants, who in many cases were considered middle, and upper-middle class people in their own countries.
Trump's goal whether you like it or not is to "cherry-pick" the pool of potential immigrants to get those most likely to be middle, upper-middle, or upper-class.
Remember this, America is a plutocracy, given that, you want immigrants that are vested in supporting and growing that plutocracy.
4
"It reduces people to economic resources and legal permanent residency and citizenship to transactions. "
That's all a "businessman" like trump and the Republican politicians know, economic resources and transactions. Why are we surprised?
Seniors and the handicapped ("no economic resources and only negative transactions") will feel the results of these ideas.
They are already being destroyed.
They lose Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, etc.
Environmental regulations are already being destroyed. The have little or no economic benefit to our country, so we just toss them out resulting in severe weather changes, limited clean air and water in parts of the country.
1
It is of note our pending "wealth test" for immigrants is but a part of federal support which is freely given out. Where are the cries to end the oil depletion allowance, credits for depreciation of equipment, SSDI, right-offs for real estate investment, categorization of earnings from hedge funds as capital gains and not ordinary income and the myriad tweaks to the income tax code which favor those who pull the strings and disfavor the immigrant?
Socialism for the rich is just fine; social support for the rest of us is anathema. Give me a break. Any while you are at it, give the immigrant a break, too.
24
@Doug McNeill
For our citizens I support food stamps, Social Security Disability Insurance, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid...
I support screening out potential immigrants that are going to depend on those programs so we can use the savings for our poor citizens.
I own a small business. When I buy a piece of equipment, say a truck, it wears out. Its value depreciates. What was I "given".
Give me a break.
18
@Doug McNeill
Dear Doug,
The US government, European governments, the Chinese government, almost every government in the world provide subsidies for their local industry and for their farmers.
This is in part to ensure that unfair pricing tactics by other countries do not eliminate important industries in the home country. The other is to ensure that home countries to the extent possible, can be self sufficient in case of natural disaster and war.
Yes, there is corporate greed that should be curtailed, but subsidies for industry are not all bad.
3
Every immigrant has a financial sponsor who guarantees no public assistance.The wealth test is going to bar immigrants based on US citizen family members such as spouse and children who receive public benefits. Actual non US citizen immigrants have not been eligible for federal public benefits since 1996. Additionally it is not truly a year of benefits, multiple benefits in a month are aggregated. So if a US citizen mother has a child and receives medicaid for the delivery, uses WIC, food stamps, housing assistance the first month after the birth would count as 4 months of the year so 3-4 months of need after a new child could prevent the father of that child from coming to the United States to support his family.
This is a direct attack on the US and Lawful permanent resident family members. Family immigration requires a spouse or parent or child over 21 or sibling who is a US citizen or permanent resident to be the financial sponsor. Family wants to be together so US citizen children will go hungry, forgo medical care and will be more likely to live in substandard housing.The family may have to kick out elderly US citizen parents they are supporting because the elderly receive the most public benefits. This is about becoming an anti immigrant country and about denigrating birth right citizenship and US citizens that marry foreign nationals. This policy is not about the immigrant and everything to do with the US household that immigrant is joining.
7
The Country is simply different now. One hundred years has brought immense change and with it comes changing needs. The needs of the Country should drive our immigration policy - not the needs of immigrants.
78
@William
"The needs of the Country should drive our immigration policy "
and the needs of our country include hard-working devoted homecare aids for aging grandparents, housecleaners, janitors, etc, all of whom are devoted to children who then rise to become, as the author explained to those who listen, contributors to America, such as the author herself, granddaughter of a grave digger, now a college professor.
A few thoughts: one is that certain immigrants will provide returns that are beyond what we typically imagine — such as companies that generate billions in wealth as well as 10,000s of jobs. Second is that predicting who will be that unicorn will not be as simple given the degree of randomness we all reckon with.
It’s clear with the current conditions, we’re trending towards a more restrictive approach. We don’t necessary want the sclerotic growth of let’s say a Japan, however it does appear we’ll have to make adjustments to increase the carrying capacity. There’s wasteful spending everywhere, runaway healthcare costs (that increases the deficit), subsidies that don’t generate growth — agree that the onus is not on struggling citizens to continuously make concessions that affect their individual financial well-being.
Simple rhetorical persuasion will not work. However, the solutions do lie ahead of us if we think on a longer timeframe than those who are short-sighted.
1
Each time someone writes an opinion on this subject, I see the majority of comments are similar to the ones posted here. Most Americans want migrants to come here LEGALLY. We may have lost sight of the fact that trump is most likely president because of this one single desire that many Americans have. I feel that's why there are so many low income people who voted for him in 2016 - they are tired of feeding/housing and covering medical issues for every immigrant who "needs" to come here to escape danger in their home countries. It's difficult to find the balance between compassion and financial responsibility, but I don't disagree with a "wealth test". I imagine every country has one. As for refugees, that should be a different story, and laws should be in place to assist those people. And I totally disagree with the new laws that restrict immigration from particular countries - that is downright racist.
26
@JG wrote: ". . . I totally disagree with the new laws that restrict immigration from particular countries - that is downright racist."
Three-fourths of the H-1B visas go to citizens of India; three-fourths of the visas go to men.
Whither diversity?
5
@JG
Those countries that we restrict immigration from were deemed "terrorists countries", or "countries that support terrorism" - by the Obama administration.
Until we strengthen our borders and immigration system, restricting immigration from those countries is necessary - not racist.
8
@JG I'm tired of feeding, housing, and covering medical issues for hillbilly freeloaders all across the American South. The State of Delaware received about $900 million more in federal benefits than it paid in federal taxes in 2017, which makes Delaware better than most states but still a net freeloader rather than a net provider. Compared to New York, which paid about $24 billion more than the value of the services that it received in the same year.
The Americans you cite, who are so concerned with paying for things for illegal immigrants, should look to themselves and start paying their own way without handouts from liberals, before they start talking about not wanting to pay for other people to have things.
Maybe the author has not sponsored a would be green card holder lately, because if she had she would know that as a sponsor she would have to agree her sponsee would not receive public assistance and that she would be responsible for their care. Has she checked how expensive rents, food and health care are? Does she have enough assets herself to assume such an awesome burden? Because if she doesn’t she should not assume everybody else does or that the country as a whole should shoulder that burden.
The current poverty thresholds are $12,760 for an individual under 65 years old and $26,200 for a family of four. The author’s much criticized “wealth test” would require that green card applicants demonstrate they are at 125% of the poverty level. Using these figures, applicants would need to show they earn more than $14,355 (individual) and $29,475 (family of 4). But seriously, does anybody really think anybody earning that little would not require assistance? Bottom line is that even those meeting the new “wealth test” requirement would be quite likely to require public assistance. If so, why would the author argue to let people in that we know for sure will require public assistance when we already have so many in need?
60
There are hundreds of millions of people who would like to come to America. Since we clearly can't take them all it is appropriate to choice ones with the most to contribute to our nation. Not just financially, but that is a metric which we should consider. There is nothing un-American about expecting that people who wish to come here not be a burden on society. And comparing today to 100 years ago is totally disingenuous, we now provide a massive array of social benefit to people verses a time when immigrants had to sink or swim.
107
A fantastic article. In my experience, most immigrants, when given the chance, are a benefit to the community. These conservative myths that immigrants are a drain on our society actually make our society worse. My family has benefitted from a society that allowed for immigrants and the GI Bill.
9
This opinion piece clearly outlines the reasoning that is so anathema to hard-working Americans paying their taxes year after year, just getting by, yet not qualifying for benefits. Why should those who cannot support themselves enter this country, gain benefits, when so many already here are struggling?
97
@dc do you believe immigrants are not hard working and struggling too? And that they are getting benefits that are not available to you? The folks that are getting benefits that you are probably not able to get are not the immigrants, but the wealthy class in this country. And they are getting even more wealthy because of how the tax system works to their advantage.
1
My understanding was that benefits provided by the government are paid for from taxes. If you have not paid taxes then should you get the benefits?
23
@Indian Diner not in this context. The individual has a visa and is legally in the US. That means the individual is already paying taxes. When the individual would now like switch from that visa and apply for a green card, USCIS can choose to deny him / her the green card on the basis that previously he / she received benefits e.g. SNAP.
5
@Indian Diner The author describes the recipients as citizens, so presumably they are paying taxes.
1
@Indian Diner That sounds awesome, frankly. Considering the fact that New York State pays about $24 billion more than the value of the services and benefits it receives each year, so that failed states like Kansas and Louisiana can continue to have things like roads, fire departments, and schools.
I'd be happy to cut off all those welfare leeches, and have a system where each state pays its own way. Then we can see how these conservative utopias in the South manage, when they can't rely on handouts from New York and California anymore.
3
"Indeed, those who say their ancestors didn’t get government help as newly arrived immigrants would have to admit that their ancestors also never enjoyed the government benefits, like Medicare and Social Security, that now make these critics comfortable."
Ancestors who didn't get help as newly arrived immigrants were never eligible for Medicare and Social Security, those programs are too new. Some of their children didn't live long enough to benefit from their contributions, as you know the age cutoff for these programs is set to make sure not everyone will benefit, although most everyone working legally will pay in and those that live long enough will get back much more than they pay in.
I'd rather see the children of those who were deliberately robbed by the statistical setup benefit in the form of a reduction in their college loan or tuition (Pell Grant, GIBill) instead of the money from their deceased too early parents taken and gifted to noncitizens or to those who won't work legally and contribute. Their parents paid so much into social security/medicare for others that they couldn't fund their childrens' education...and unlike the newly arrived indigent, these children aren't eligible for massive tuition breaks. Really unfair to rob that family of startup funds for their young; double unfair to hand it to noncitizens and triple unfair to spend so much on ESL that citizens can't even get a college prep education in K12.
25
@ARL, Social Security never broke anyone, and certainly never stopped anyone from gong to college. And you had better start saving now for retirement. Without it most Americans would have NOTHING for retirement.
1
The difference is that our ancestors received almost no social benefits.
When my grandfather came here in 1906, he had to go to work at the age of 12.
He and his siblings prospered.
But we cannot afford to become the third world's charity.
126
@Josh Hill
"The difference is that our ancestors received almost no social benefits."
That depends who your ancestors were and when they arrived in the United States. For example, in the early 1960s a substantial number of Cuban immigrants reached government benefits to get established in America and start their own buinsesses.
"the United States Congress passed the Cuban Adjustment Act in 1966. The Cuban Refugee Program provided more than $1.3 billion of direct financial assistance. They also were eligible for public assistance, Medicare, free English courses, scholarships, and low-interest college loans.[citation needed]"
"Some banks pioneered loans for exiles who did not have collateral or credit but received help in getting a business loan. These loans helped many Cuban Americans to secure funds and start-up their own businesses."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_immigration_to_the_United_States
2
For many years, this country required any legal immigrants to have their stays and upkeep in this country guaranteed by someone who was already here. Why should we be responsible for the upkeep of legal or illegal immigrants? I just don't get it and many immigrants in the past have made it fine here without dependence on public services.
79
And yet other countries do it. I remember being so struck with Cornwall, England's beauty that I asked an English friend how easy is it to move there. I was told that I would need enough enough money to prove I wouldn't be a burden to Britain.
(Of course, I'd never leave Brooklyn permanently anyway. I stuck it out the whole of its worst decades, and my parents and grandparents lived here. I guess, though, if Chirlane got elected to anything I'd have to rethink that.)
35
@B.
And that's one of the most infuriating things about England.
We already have a skills-based immigration system for non-EU immigrants yet we're engaging in this pointless demagoguery for nothing.
1
"The wealth test’s supporters say immigrants should be self-sufficient and productive members of society. Yet having legal permanent residency, as opposed to being undocumented, makes it easier to integrate into society.:
Typical Trump catch-22. You come here to build a life and contribute, but God forbid you can't hit the ground running.
Most people seeking to migrate permanently have escaped horrors or failing economies. Miller's great-grandfather was an asylum seeker from antisemitic Belarus. Trump's grandfather come for adventure and quick bucks, not available in Germany. My great-grandfather emigated to Boston from starving Ireland in 1864, to literally save his life.
How many Americans have similar stories? It was easier to assimilate with strong community support than it is today in our fragmented and complex economy with weaking support systems. Immigrants, desperately sought by businesses, need a break-in period
Miller and Trump won't allow it.
21
@ChristineMcM I must ask you. What *about* those can hit the ground running - should we level the playing ground for those who can't just to see to it that those prepared lose that advantage? Doesn't sound fair to me.
10
@ChristineMcM sorry but I don’t want to pay more taxes to gives non citizens a leg up. Would rather help my fellow Americans get a leg up first.
11
@ChristineMcM
Dear ChristineMcM,
I appreciate your humanitarian outlook, but in fact every country in the world; and I have lived in many places, 5 different continents, require anyone residing in their country for an extended length of time to have a self-sustaining job, a sponsor (usually the company you work for), insurance and a return ticket to your home country.
With this in place, assuming you are paying local taxes, you can utilize the local social network for some things, such as medical care, but not all, for example not pension benefits.
Why should the US be different. We have too many of our own people that are in desperate straits. We need to take care of them first.
7
We don't have to keep doing the same thing forever.
Besides, there have always been restrictions on who could immigrate (disease, criminal record, country of origin...).
Circumstances are not static.
Also, these days, we must PREVENT OVERPOPULATION, so setting the bar higher makes all the sense in the world.
61
Actually, we should be more worried about having enough workers to grow the economy and to pay into Social Security than we should about overpopulation.
11
@Jen
Time for a new economic paradigm.
If we were to divide all of the land area of the Earth (including Antarctica, Greenland, all the deserts and mountains...), equally, amongst all the people of the Earth, each one of us would get about five acres (an acre is slightly smaller than an NFL football field, not counting the end zones).
Now, imagine trying to get all your needs for subsistence from that five acres (food, clothing, shelter & materials, fuel and energy, mining...).
If U.S. lands were divided equally amongst its citizens, each would get about 7.4 acres. In India, the number would be about 0.3 acres per person, 1.7 acres for each Chinese.
The world population has increased from about 3 billion in 1960 to almost 8 billion today (a doubling time of a little over 40 years, assuming exponential growth). US population has increased over the same time frame from about 179 million to almost 330 million (a doubling time of just over 60 years).
Both India and China are getting close to 1.4 billion inhabitants, right now.
IMAGINE OUR CHILDREN LIVING IN A WORLD WITH 16 BILLION PEOPLE, and a U.S. with almost 700 million.
21
@Peter Rasmussen , US is not overpopulated. Mexico, Canada and the USA have room for another 700 million people.
The writer's sentiments and parallels to immigration in the late 19 & 20 Century are well scripted.
The 21st century is a different challenge, even the UK, in its new immigration bill is conscious, of that, hence the reform
Low income, non STEM immigrants are not the focus of many countries, aka, USA, Australia, Canada, UK,
In the early 1900's USA's deficit was very low, population around 30 Million,
Today it has a $14 Trillion deficit, population of 320 million, Social security for hard-working Americans is at risk.
The jobs market is growing here, while declining in most developed countries.
We may face the prospect of a capitalist country becoming socialist if one of the opponents gets the nod.
The public who work hard and pay taxes, should not be subsidizing folks who ran across borders to claim free homes, health care and deliver babies, at the cost of the State. That is unfair.
71
@Gyns D We do not have a 14 trillion dollar budget deficit today. If you want to cite debts and deficits as the reasoning behind your arguments, you should be able to tell them apart.
The National Debt is about 14 trillion dollars. That is the total amount of money that the US owes to its creditors. The Budget Deficit is, this year, about 1 trillion dollars. That is how much we spend minus how much revenue we collected, in a single year. Each year we run a Budget Deficit, the National Debt increases, and but they are not the same thing.
3
This article is not about illegal immigration.
It’s about legal immigrants, many of whom are already naturalized cituzans.
@Jerry Engelbach
Dear Jerry,
You are correct the article it is about legal immigrants but it is not about naturalized citizens.
The article is making a case that there should be no means testing of persons wishing to immigrate.
I have lived all over the world in my 64 years on 5 different continents and everyone one of them require you to have a means of support, insurance and a sponsor in country to guarantee you will not be a burden to the local social network. Otherwise no visa.
Most of them require you to have a return ticket to your country of citizenship so if you need to leave they do not have to pay for it.
Legal immigrants should be self supporting and not dependent on the very poor social network in the USA that currently does not adequately care for its own citizens.
4
"While a merit-based immigration system may appear fair and practical, it is humiliating in its utilitarianism."
No, it's smart. The vast majority of countries around the world have similar systems. If a nation has a welfare system, then a means test for immigration plus border enforcement are logically required. Period.
And if the author is all-in on equality and all-out against any wealth, financial or other merit-based measures, she surely must be against income taxes, property taxes and inheritance taxes?
After all, wouldn't it be more humanistic and sensitive, and less humiliating, for every member of society to pay exactly the same amount in taxes toward support of government functions?
128
The fact, that the new wealth test for immigration would have stopped many past immigrants, is not a particularly sound argument against its use. A high wall and a wide gate appears to make more sense for the American businesses that need legal immigrant labor, for families who welcome immigrant relatives, and for refugees escaping terror and death in their homelands. Unfortunately, Trump and Stephen Miller prefer a high wall and a very small gate.
16
Most countries have hurdles for who can become a resident (temporary or permanent) or citizen. As the U.S. rushes towards autocracy, I'd gladly emigrate - but am told by Canadian immigration attorneys that I am a) too old b) not rich enough (middle class just won't cut it). So, perhaps the right question shouldn't be if the wealth-test is un-American, but is it unfair? I don't know.
23
recent article on becoming an expat, within the comments, noted living in Lima Peru or Ecuador super affordable. Canadian points system awards zero points for age once over 47 :(
4
I agree, there should not only be this criteria. I can compare this to the United Kingdom. Thanks to Theresa May the sky is the limit on how long and how much it costs anyone who is "married" to a British Citizen and may not wish but has made a decision to live in the UK. It now takes 5 years to get "indefinite leave to remain," and costs a whopping £5,000 to £10,000, and this is not any legal fee for a Solicitor...but the amount one is forced to pay to the Home Office. Compare this with other advanced countries. I would say only that I disagree with this rip-off of a spouse of a citizen, whichever country does this. And Trump in his urge to have only rich Americans such as himself (forget that he did not generate the money, his father largely did) is skewering those who have wanted to better themselves and make America better by their presence. Still I feel very sad that the "tabloid" journalism in the UK precludes this being discussed in the UK, the rip-off that is that I describe above.
3
I disagree with this article entirely. It makes perfect sense not to let someone in who cannot even support themselves. All of my grandparents migrated, and not one took a penny from the government ever until they retired and received social security they paid into
201
@Gr Maxwell
Canada at one time did not have a system to provide for immigrants. Parents, and sometimes their adolescent children had to go to work as soon as they arrived. Canada changed over time, and created a system to provide new immigrants with some help. Nevertheless, most immigrants succeeded in Canada and forewent the safeguards that were provided to them.
Today, Canada has created an open-arms policy whereby many foreigners who landed in the USA, have now decided to cross the USA-Canada border and leave the USA. Canada has loads of "safeguards" such as healthcare, education, teaching English or French, food and of course free housing.
Sadly, a small group of these new immigrants have taken advantage of our open-arms policy and have abused it.There may come a time up here, when our open-heart policy will become much harsher, and these "so-called" immigrants will find that the borders will now be much harder to just walk across.
2
I'm not a fan of Trump but this piece is absurd. The POTUS initiative is to curb abuses by illegals, legal and others who are determined to get a handout. The "public charge" provision has always been there. It's in place because there is no reason why the American taxpayer should bear the burden of an immigrant who cannot support himself. Can anyone here please explain why this should be the responsibility of taxpayers? Often, the provision is overcome by a sponsoring relative executing an Affidavit of Support, relieving the taxpayer of any potential burden. If the immigrant becomes unable to support himself, the sponsor who executed the Affidavit of Support is legally responsible for supporting him. We should keep the provision that allows a sponsoring relative to execute an Affidavit of Support in case the immigrant needs it. But it would be enforced. Let's be clear this is not a wealth test - this is routine for the world over - including enlightened Europe. Britain will not even give you a work visa, forget residency - even with an offer in hand - unless the salary is above a threshold. Legal & illegal immigration is a big problem here. Many state Democrats are offering illegals free healthcare, food stamps, in-state-tuition, & sanctuary. This is unsustainable & indefensible. Why is the only answer, that they have an unrestricted right to come to the U.S.? The more benefits we give the more will try to get here. It's an impossible equation. Time for some common sense.
209
@Bill Brown “Taxpayers” from your perspective are hard working Americans. I think if we expand the group of Taxpayers (corporations and the wealthy, like our president) then regular Americans would feel much more positivity than pushing back in the immigrants. Ego-centric Americans believe they all come to suck off our country and spend our tax money. Immigrants I know love their homeland and only came because they wanted a better life (due to crime, economics, social issues). They do not think living on SNAP and squalor is the American dream. If you reset your thinking about this, and maybe require a few more pennies from the Waltons and Bezos, you may welcome immigrants.
1
@Bill Brown I hope every Democratic candidate reads and digests what you just wrote. If not, Trump will win again.
20
@Bill Brown
The term "wealth test" is misleading; it should really be "dependency test."
This test is meant to keep out persons who are likely to become public charges, i.e., dependent on support of American citizens and taxpayers.
Most Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants, but do not want ILLEGAL immigrants. They recognize that the US cannot afford (or choose not) to support our own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al., and that they and other US taxpayers cannot possibly support the 20 million illegal immigrants already in the US, much less the hundreds of millions of foreigners who would like to come here.
US laws allow foreigners to seek entry and citizenship. Those who do not follow these laws are in this country illegally and should be detained and deported; this is policy in other countries, too.
The cruelty lies not in limiting legal immigration, or detaining and deporting illegal immigrants, or forcing those who wish to enter the US to wait for processing. What is cruel, unethical and probably illegal is encouraging parents to bring their children on the dangerous trek to US borders and teaching the parents how to game the system to enter the US by falsely claiming asylum, persecution, etc.
Indeed, many believe bringing children on such perilous journeys constitutes child abuse.
No other nation has open borders, nor should the US.
15
11++ million illegal immigrants get 'emergency' Medicaid to the tune of about $2 Billion a year (and that's just healthcare)
Taxpayers are already forced to support the health and education of everyone who makes it over the border or overstays their visa and any children they choose to have while here.
We work to pay to support our own citizens. No one voted and no where in the constitution does it state that we are obligated to endlessly support foreign citizens. Unelected judges decided that.
If we want to support healthy legal immigration, we need a functioning enforced immigration system. Not the current opportunistic, manipulated free for all.
174
@CNNNNC So true. Just yesterday Feb. 23 the local newspaper in Tampa did a long story bemoaning the suffering of an illegal immigrant in this country who may be effected by this law. She has six children and receives food stamps. She has been here in Florida for 20 years, illegally, but her children all born here. We know why she had children here, but the article had no mention of that, nor any discussion of where the children's father(s) are, if they are paying support, the ages of the children -- or asking why she had so many kids if she is income limited? It's a fair question. But we know why: there is food stamps, subsidized housing etc., and a tremendously long wait for such housing. We need to focus on our own citizens, a growing number of which have no homes at all.
18
@CNNNNC "11++ million illegal immigrants get 'emergency' Medicaid to the tune of about $2 Billion a year (and that's just healthcare)"
That 2 billion is 0.002% of the Federal budget of 1 trillion. Not even significant.
In other news, Trumps golf cart rentals alone over the last 3 years have cost the taxpayers over $500,000! For doing NOTHING.
I would rather spend it on immigrants who actually do something for this country than a lazy "president" who has spent more time golfing his first year than Obama did over 8 years.
1
Yes, you write that we admire stories of immigrants of many decades ago, admire their courage and grit. Yes. I agree completely.
but that was an era when there was no SNAP, no welfare, no massive entitlement safety net. It was do or die, literally.
That generation had no slackers, their progeny would not have existed.
It was also a time when travel was difficult and arduous, compared to today.
There are legal ways to enter the country. Anyone that enters illegally, should, of course, be dealt with according to rule of law. That's the case for every country in the world, basically.
thus, your straw dog example doesn't hold water. sorry, I disagree.
223
@Joe Game A straw dog example would be where a bear trap falls on someone's head. In this case it's anachronistic apples and oranges combined with presentism.
This article is about changes to the legal immigration system. It has nothing to do with illegal immigration. As to the programs that didn't exist when earlier waves of immigrants arrived, you seem to presume that, because these programs exist now, newer waves of legal immigrants rely on them more than native born Americans. I think the statistics are the opposite. That immigrants rely on these programs at lower rates. And as they are legal immigrants, who generally work and pay taxes, why shouldn't they be able to avail themselves of these benefits when, say, Walmart doesn't pay them a living wage? You also seem to suggest that recent immigrants come to the US seeking access to government programs. By and large, they don't. They come for the same reason previous generations of immigrants came. For the opportunity to have a better life - not a life reliant on government assistance, which is not a cushy or even pleasant life. They come with the drive to succeed. Just like previous generations of immigrants. Finally, You seem to minimize how arduous and difficult the journeys of these new immigrants are. You must have read about asylum seekers - a legal component of our immigration system - who have walked 2000+ miles from central America, through dangerous and treacherous terrain. How much more arduous can you get than that? These are people with the drive to risk their lives to give their children a better life. They are exactly the immigrants we should be welcoming.
5
@Joe Game -- The beautiful history you imagine with "no slackers" never existed. Moreover, to assume everyone who relies on public assistance for even a short time is a "slacker" is both mean-spirited and utterly uninformed. And your suggestion that travel for immigrants today is never "arduous" is laughable--have YOU ever tried walking from Honduras or Guatemala to the United States? Even if you don't feel empathy for immigrants, at least base your arguments on reality.
5
Let's also be a bit more honest about this, there is no one who can predict the future, no one can predict who will be a public charge. This is all just a tool to impose discrimination; an attempt to reduce overall immigration and ultimately increase white immigration (as Trump says, people from Norway).
Examples of public charges: the military, farmers getting subsidies, corporations getting tax breaks, those who benefit from the corn subsidy, those who benefit from the sugar subsidy, etc.
36
@PNBlanco
If being a farmer is so easy, and they get all these "breaks", why dont you do it?
Subsides and tax breaks are actually incentives. If you ever ran your own business, you'd have the ability to understand that. Farmers dont have to do what they do. they could simply sell their phone, pile their cash into tax free bonds, and spend their days at the beach.
22
@PNBlanco I'll try to be even a bit more honest. There is no need for prediction. At this time, can the applicant assure the government that he or she has the means to avoid becoming a public charge?
It seems language has been permanently corrupted in that 'discrimination' is now conflated with prejudice, racism or even white supremacy. The brain's capacity to discriminate, for example better from worse, has been passed on because it has proved very useful.
Supports for various institutions might at some point be optimal, and at other times vary; the military, farmers (including corn farmers and sugar growers) are offering benefits to our society, however much their power has lessened them.
Not to despair. One can bring this issue closer. Leave the door to your home open. The more the merrier.
13
@Sports Medicine They could. But it's more profitable to simply grow a crop that we don't really need, because you know you are being subsidized by the taxpayers.
Why is it the responsibility of the taxpayers to subsidize your business? That's how business works. You're either profitable, or you're not. It's hilarious how you people are constantly harping about every business in the world would shut down, unless we give them constant handouts to ensure their profitability at all time.
If you can't run a profitable business without handouts from the government or without underpaying your employees, your business deserves to shut down. Period.
1
Do many immigrants come to America needing Public Assistance? Yes they do. Are there millions of people born in America whose parents were also born in America also on Public Assistance? Yes there is. How many of those people on Public Assistance (both Immigrants and Native Born) are doing jobs that no one else on Our Country is willing to do? A great many of them. THINK about it.
17
I dunno. Lots of guys hanging out all day (and all night) here in Flatbush. And wait. It isn't summer yet.
I suppose there are plenty of jobs they just don't want to do.
Mostly, the only time I see Mexican or Ecuadorian guys hanging out is when they're waiting for trucks to take them to their roofing jobs.
9