Trump Administration looking to enforce the law:
“public charge” requirement coming back! by Ann Corcoran
3/30/18
To
my readers who have asked me about this for years—-asked me what happened to a
law already on the books—here is a glimmer of (potential) good news.
Needless
to say the No Borders Left will go insane, but frankly if the Dems do go on a
warpath against the idea that immigrants shouldn’t be sucking up welfare, it
will hurt them at the polls in November.
No sensible Republican or Democrat supports the importation
of welfare recipients.
From
Neil Munro at Breitbart (hat
tip Richard @highblueridge):
Homeland defense officials are reviving enforcement of a law that is
intended to bar legal migrants who cannot earn a living in the United States.
The
proposed regulation would implement the existing law, which bars legal
immigrants from imposing a “public charge” on Americans. However, the plan is likely to be bitterly opposed by a
loose alliance of business groups and by Democrats, both of whom gain
when the federal government provides taxpayer aid to migrants, legal or
illegal.
A
spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told Breitbart News: The administration is committed to enforcing existing
immigration law, which is clearly intended to protect the American taxpayer by
ensuring that foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in the U.S are
self-sufficient.
Any
proposed changes would ensure that the government takes the responsibility of
being good stewards of taxpayer funds seriously and adjudicates immigration
benefit requests in accordance with the law.
The
plan was mentioned in a 2017 work-plan released by DHS, but it was highlighted
Wednesday by a report in the Washington Post.
The
report said: Immigrants
who accept almost any form of welfare or public benefit, even popular tax
deductions, could be denied legal U.S. residency under a proposal awaiting
approval by the Trump administration, which is seeking to reduce the number of
foreigners living in the United States.
The
proposal would also require Americans who sponsor migrants to post bonds of up
to $10,000, which could be used to repay taxpayers for migrants’ use of federal
aid.
The
plan must be approved by DHS Secretary Kirstjen
Nielsen, and then undergo a months-long public
comment and regulatory process before it becomes a large regulation. If
adopted, it will replace a 1999 regulation.
If
the requirement extended to refugees the entire refugee program would crash and
that is because the primary job of the resettlement contractors is to sign
incoming refugees up for their ‘services’ (aka welfare). They also help
refugees find those low skilled jobs (slaughterhouse and hotel workers, etc)
and show them how to supplement meager wages with welfare.
And, that idea of posting a bond makes me chuckle.
Imagine
this: Catholic Charities, the Lutherans, the Episcopalians and the Jews among
the refugee resettlement agencies could sponsor refugees and instead of being
paid to place them, the non-profit NGO puts up a $10,000 bond for say each
family they place with the bond money coming from private charity.
When
they have to put their private money where their mouth is, we would find out
very quickly that their humanitarian zeal isn’t real!
These
are the nine major federal refugee contractors presently paid millions of tax
dollars to resettle refugees. There will never be reform of the UN/US Refugee
Admissions Program as long as they collect federal funds and act as community
organizing and political agitation groups.
The
number in parenthesis is the percentage of the nine VOLAGs’ income paid by you (the taxpayer) to place the
refugees, line them up with (low paying) jobs in food production and cleaning
hotel rooms, and get them signed up for their services! From most recent accounting, here.
Ethiopian
Community Development Council (ECDC) (secular)(93%)
International
Rescue Committee (IRC) (secular) (66.5%)
US
Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) (secular) (98%)
Norb
Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment