Deceptive post title. The Trump Administration, from the linked article, is planning to tiren restrictions on legal immigrants who have used various public assistance programs—not all legal immigrants.
It was, at one time, a rule if someone sponsored someone for legal immigration, that individual signed an agreement they would not allow their sponsored to collect public assistance should they fail to support themselves. Once becoming a permanent resident, sponsored & his/her sponsor could not get welfare benefits for them for 10 years.
I’ve mixed feelings on the issue. On the one hand, once a lawful permanent resident, sometimes those individuals fall on hard times & should be able to get the same temporary assistance as others. On the other, “Give me you’re poor, tired, huddled masses yearning to breathe free” was never intended to bring in those who would nort or could not support themselves.
Perhaps section of immigrants should look not at conditions they’re leaving behind, but at what they can do to support themselves once they’re here.
Forced. Anyway, you have a right to a jury of your peers and the ability to defend yourself anyway you wanted. I mean the Twinkie defense. I guess that’s pretty American. Except the Twinkie defense worked… honor killing did not
“Immigration lawyers and advocates and public health researchers say it would be the biggest change to the legal immigration system in decades and estimate that more than 20 million immigrants could be affected. They say it would fall particularly hard on immigrants working jobs that don’t pay enough to support their families.”
To me, that raises the question of why have we allowed 20,000,000 immigrants into this country who are not capable of taking care of themselves? What possible benefit to the country could there be in that?
That’s not what it means. 20 mil people who at one point or another may have fallen on hard times. It is not that they cannot take care of themselves. A variation of your position was already discussed.
Yes. I have sarcastically argued in the past that i am ok with unlimited migration. I am not. I am fine with vetting. I have a problem with merit based immigration policy but that’s for another time. What I am trying to impart is that restrictions and proof of support are fine but also falling on hard times is fine, as long as the person stops eating that cheese.
You and I discussed it. My point is always that I am ok with people coming here even if they are not skilled. Especially younger families. They may or may not have kids but to me the fact that you pick up and leave your country shows something about the person’s “bootstrapiness.”
That’s what I was wondering. My ex-wife is a resident alien and while the thought does provide an evil giggle, I actuality I don’t think she should be deported because we qualified for earned income tax credits years ago.
Again, from the article:
“Immigration lawyers and advocates and public health researchers say it would be the biggest change to the legal immigration system in decades and estimate that more than 20 million immigrants could be affected. They say it would fall particularly hard on immigrants working jobs that don’t pay enough to support their families.”
So you are correct, it would seem to be not the entire 20 million. I should have limited my statement to those “immigrants working jobs that don’t pay enough to support their families”. That subset would not be the sort of immigrant we should be allowing into the country.
