Monday, September 24, 2018

Is Trump Being a Con Man With His Welfare Wall Proposal?


By Robert Wenzel

As a follow up to my post, Is Trump About to Put Up a Welfare Wall?, Michael Edelstein emails:
Bob,
You wrote: "According to The New York Times, the Trump administration announced
Saturday it will seek to deny green cards to immigrants who are likely to use public assistance, including housing vouchers and food subsidies."
Are we talking about presumed guilt?
To Michael's point, I did not miss the possibility that this was a sleight of hand by Trump. My view was that it could be easily determined if an immigrant had a job, had prospects of a job and that was the intention of Trump. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt when there is little opportunity to do so with him.

I would have slammed him if the policy were being used to deny those who legitimately were coming to the United States for work or had other means of non-public support if they stayed in the U.S.

For the harsher view, consider David Bier's perspective at Cato. Bier does a bunch of objectionable technocratic commentary based on what is "fiscally positive for the state," he is after all a beltarian. But he does make a series of points, sans fiscally positive analysis, that indicates how the Trump administration, specifically the DHS, could use the policy to prevent immigrants from entering on a pretty random basis without a hard analysis of their true income status :
[R]ather than building a wall around welfare, the rule adopts the opposite approach: it uses the welfare state as an excuse to further wall off the country...
[T]he rule fails to define what it means by “likely.” Given that the entire function of the rule is to predict the probability of future benefits use, DHS bureaucrats will have to define the threshold likelihood on a case-by-case basis, creating uncertainty for applicants and leading to denials for immigrants who should be approved. This imprecision is strange in light of the great precision with which DHS attempts to measure household income and benefits amounts.
Bottom line: I will continue to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here until the policy is put in writing and enacted. My view remains that there should be a welfare wall that prohibits immigrants from obtaining public support. If the final policy appears to be mostly in this direction, I will support it. If it doesn't I will slam it.

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher of




16 comments:

  1. ── If the final policy appears to be mostly in this direction, I will support it. If it doesn't I will slam it. ──

    Robert, it is safe to say that the latter condition applies: The Trump administration is going to use the 'wall around welfare' as a guise to limit the number of immigrants coming to the US to fill the jobs the Market is calling them to fulfill. Your argument that this wall should surround welfare is sound; however, considering the consistently horrendous policies implemented by the Trump administration, your expectation may be too sanguine.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If I fly into the Bahamas, I MUST have a return ticket to the States or demonstrate that by boat, which is substantial, is duly registered and berthed in the Bahamas. I am also sometimes asked in many island nations if I am duly employed. I just point to my boat and say "Retired. $250,000 yacht" and they stamp my passport.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's funny how those who want the USA to open borders don't demand a two way street. Just one way into the USA but no demands on other nations such that americans and europeans could easily escape.

      Delete
    2. Do you demand a two-way street to Sears, or Walmart? The call to perfect reciprocity is mostly used by those who want to stiffle peaceful trade, because it's an impossible standard to achieve. Trade, including trade of labor, increases overall well-being, as demonstrated by those societies that dropped barriers unilaterally.

      Delete
    3. I didn't demand any perfect reciprocity. Perfect reciprocity may or may not happen if borders are open in both directions, that is something for the market to decide. I pointed out the hypocrisy of not calling for the borders to be open in both directions. The hypocrisy that the US and europe be open to others but the others not be open to the US and europe.

      Torres, if free trade is so good and you demand that US borders be open you should demand the borders of these other nations be open too. You might not get it but you could be consistent and demand free trade and free flow of people in all directions. But you don't and you make excuses like the above for not doing so. Therefore you once again expose your true leftist agenda of dismantling what's left of the 18th century experiment in liberty by not allowing liberty minded people to flow from the west to other places but only people who have no concept or desire for liberty to flow into the western world.

      Delete
    4. Maybe the reason that people tend to focus on US policy is because most of us live in the US?

      Delete
    5. But those in the US who want the borders of the US open have no issue arguing the same for western Europe and other western nations while being rather silent with regards to other nations, even nations like Mexico that have people trying to get in.

      Delete
    6. Can you name anyone who’s argued that the US should let more immigrants in, but Mexico shouldn’t?

      Delete
    7. Re: Jimmy Je Meeker,

      To answer your points:
      ── I didn't demand any perfect reciprocity ──

      But perfect reciprocity is implied in your quibble ─that we "don't demand a two way street." What two-way street would you not object to, except a perfect one?


      ── if free trade is so good and you demand that US borders be open you should demand the borders of these other nations be open too. ──

      First of all, I don't demand anything. I am arguing in favor of two principles which, I trust and know, will improve the well-being of people this side of the political border: allowing the free-flow of goods, services and capital, and the free-flow of labor. Whether people on the other side of the political border heed my message or not, that's their problem.

      Your demand, by the way, is odd. It's like demanding that the rest of people be good people so that you can personally start being a good person. I know that that's not how you act when interacting with other people, instead acting in a way that is good regardless of how others act, because you know it brings the most benefit to YOU. The same should apply to economic policy: Free trade should be considered the good policy no matter how others act.

      ── Therefore you once again expose your true leftist agenda of dismantling what's left of the 18th century experiment in liberty [...] ──

      That's just pure nonsense. Not one paragraph ago, you said to me 'Moi?' when I pointed out you expect perfect reciprocity, and there you go doing it again. I don't have to go out into the world to preach a message that is obvious. Saying that I have a 'leftist agenda' only serves to emphasize your own penchant for mislabeling people. Leftists are quite HOSTILE towards markets and trade. They are also liars and cheats. Bernie Sanders is one of the few honest leftists ──he's anti-trade and anti-immigration.

      ── But those in the US who want the borders of the US open have no issue arguing the same for western Europe and other western nations ──

      Because: Who cares what happens to them? Let them rot inside their fish bowl which they created themselves. Why are you so worried about what their governments do? Focus on what your government is doing to YOU, which is limiting your choices, and mine.

      Delete
    8. "But perfect reciprocity is implied"

      It is not implied. It is your usual tactic, to make up something between the lines and attack that instead of responding to the point(s) made.

      "First of all, I don't demand anything. I am arguing in favor of two principles"

      Hilarious. You argue for (demand) open borders for the western nations and if you were principled you would not have had any issue with my point. Because my point is the principled argument, one of working towards open borders (and free trade) world wide.

      You argue for and defend a check valve. Where things flow freely in one direction but not the other. Your selectivity, your selective disregard gives away that you are not principled. Furthermore you also have no regard to how these people that arrive may use the state here against others. Again, another obvious giveaway.

      "Whether people on the other side of the political border heed my message or not, that's their problem."

      And there you go and prove it. Again. Proving you are perfectly accepting of other nations not practicing liberty. And as to problems, what do these nations end up doing? Exporting their problems. Using open nations as a relief valve which perpetuates their non-liberty systems. And that's just fine by you.

      "Your demand, by the way, is odd. It's like demanding that the rest of people be good people so that you can personally start being a good person."

      Not at all. That's you making up things. Your favorite tactic plus shaming. I pointed out a hypocrisy and you sprang into action to defend check valve borders. By doing so demonstrated the hypocrisy with your disregard for universal liberty. Being a good person is not the same as being a doormat. You're arguing for libertarians to be doormats, much the same way leftists argue for "white people" to be doormats.

      "That's just pure nonsense. Not one paragraph ago, you said to me 'Moi?' when I pointed out you expect perfect reciprocity, and there you go doing it again."

      And there you go again, arguing in the manner and form of a leftist. You've done so, what, three or four times today in this thread branch alone? You give yourself away time and time again. I remember the nature of the very first comments I saw from you here before you changed to this attempt to use libertarianism against itself. Sorry, what you make up is just that, what you made up.

      "Focus on what your government is doing to YOU, which is limiting your choices, and mine."

      I am. It's importing voters who vote for bigger government and higher taxes on me, that is stealing from me. It created, perpetuates, and expands a system of what is effectively indentured servitude in my professional field to drive down wages. And you're cheering for it all while shaming me for objecting to it. All I want is liberty before open borders, because I don't believe in being a doormat for the world. If we achieve liberty first then the people who show up will be much more suitable for it and won't have a state to use take from me.

      Delete
    9. @JJM

      I view it as problematic to take the stance that state power must only be abolished in some particular order. It’s hard enough to roll back state power, but if we’re not allowed to attack it on whatever front happens to present itself, it becomes an almost-impossible task.

      And if one’s ultimate goal is freedom, it would seem antithetical to demand the perpetuation of state administration of public property, population quotas, etc.

      Delete
    10. ES, How many times have we seen the following:
      1) A few laws or regulations are eliminated or rolled back or a particular piece of legislation is labeled by the media as rolling back government power even if it is not.
      2) Some disaster or problem occurs.
      3) The politicians and media blame 1)
      4) The government grows in the net to make sure it doesn't happen again.

      That's just basic strategy. There's probably even names for analogous military versions.

      Delete
    11. All good points on Torres Jimmy Joe Meeker. He argues disingenuously for open borders and when you point out that not all cultures are up to the task of libertarianism, well, you just a 'da rasis'. He also like most libertarians refuse to acknowledge it is primarily a Western concept.

      Delete
  3. The point that welfare as an incentive to immigrants should be done away with is quite right. Implementation of it that abides by precepts of individual justice quite another. Immigrants who earn are taxed and pay for social security, medicare etc. Will Trump or for that matter any US government ensure that immigrants are not asked to pay for the benefits they can never hope to redeem? Highly unlikely!

    ReplyDelete
  4. RW I would like to give the benefit of the doubt when possible. What I see here is a shrewd tactic to help farmers retain seasonal workers who can easily demonstrate employment and in doing so get an opportunity to work toward and permanent status and food doesnt rot on the vine.

    Of course I reference just one market sector that would benefit, there are others!

    ReplyDelete
  5. They have to go back, every damn one of them:

    https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/27/refugee-programs-cost-americans-123-billion-in-10-years/

    ReplyDelete