Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Three Cheers for Trump's Welfare Wall!

Welfare wall?
Long-term readers know that I am no fan of President Trump's immigration and economic policies in general.

It appears he has a hate for immigrants, in particular, non-caucasian immigrants.

My view has always been, if they enter the country and can fend for themselves in any way, then they are none of my business

At the same time, I have always objected to the government getting involved with immigrants. Thus, I have called for a "welfare wall," which prevents immigrants from receiving government welfare, schooling, food stamps, healthcare and housing support. I am always for shrinking the state.

President Trump appears to be putting something of a "welfare wall" up that would disincentivize immigrants from using these services and I support him in this effort. It is a shrinking of the state.

"Trump on Monday broadened his assault on the nation’s immigration system, by issuing a new rule targeting legal immigrants who want to remain in the United States," reports The New York Times.

The new regulation is aimed at hundreds of thousands of immigrants who enter the country legally every year and then apply to become permanent residents. Starting in October, the government’s decision will be based on an aggressive wealth test to determine whether those immigrants have the means to support themselves.

Poor immigrants will be denied permanent legal status, also known as a green card, if they are deemed likely to use government benefit programs such as food stamps and subsidized housing.

I wouldn't have a wealth test for immigrants, I would simply shut government services down for immigrants (outside of services that can't be shutdown without a complete overhaul of the system, such as road use) but it appears close enough to a "welfare wall" that I can support it. I do however reserve the right to pull my support if there are indications at a later point that the regulation goes well beyond just a welfare wall and is designed to simply push immigrants out of the country.



See: Trump's Welfare Wall Turns Out to Be a Miller Immigrant Hating Wall


  1. I believe that when Ron Paul was once asked what he thought about the fact that only 50% of Americans pay income tax, he responded something like "Well, we're half way there then." I would take a similar view here: if some portion of the population is going to be denied the stolen loot that is euphemistically called "welfare," that's progress, but why stop there? Citizens shouldn't receive welfare either.

  2. This will not lead to a reduction in the state.

    1. Perhaps not but it will remove incentive to come here and take advantage. IT could also moderate the more radical individuals as seeing what is being taken from the country instead of what could be given to it in the form of hard working opportunity seekers.

      Which we shouldnt dissuade! I have pointed out the welfare wall here before as well

  3. The problem is that the new policy amounts to a kind of pre-crime/guilty-until-proven-otherwise bias that not only includes direct cash benefits (i.e. welfare) but also non-pecuniary "benefits" which could mean you can be a person who perfectly supports him or herself plus family and still be denied a change of immigration status (greencard) or citizenship if ever received 1% of the person's income of such benefits, even if by law the person or his immediate family is eligible for such benefits. This is not placing a wall between immigrants and welfare but the arbitrary exclusion of otherwise entrepreneurial and hard-working folk from achieving citizenship based on a supposition:

    ---"Under the rule, green card and visa applicants can be denied not merely for being 'primarily dependent on the government for subsistence,' as in the past, but if they are likely to need public assistance 'at any time.'"---


    To remind everyone: legal immigrants are already barred from receiving cash benefits for the first 5 years of residency, by which time they already paid taxes into the system.

    Indeed, this does not lead to the reduction of the state.

    1. But stealing from productive Americans to feed the hoards of freeloaders is leading to reduction of the state, got it.

      "already paid taxes into the system" and then got onto welfare... don't make my slippers laugh. Taxes from what, exactly? US has progressive income tax, with largish standard deductions. People who get welfare didn't pay taxes, middle class (like, people who have skills and work ethics, and who don't get on welfare) does.

    2. Hello, averros,

      ---"Taxes from what, exactly?"--

      What do you mean "from what"? Are you blind? ICE didn't kidnap 680 individuals from a slum or from a debtors' prison. They kidnapped 680 people who were in their places of work, doing productive things. Immigrants by and large rely less in welfare (or benefits, however white supremacists want to define the term) than the native born.

    3. The work the illegal immigrants normally do doesn't pay enough to create income tax liability. And most of them work for cash and don't pay taxes at all. Legal immigrant professionals like myself do, and, surprise, I don't get arrested by ICE at work. So, please, can the bullshit about "already paid their taxes". Not that anyone should pay taxes - and any reduction in the numbers of loot recipients should only be welcomed.