Wednesday, August 14, 2019

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

Stephen Miller
Okay, yesterday, with reservation, I cheered President Trump's attempt at a Welfare Wall, but it now appears the rules set down include a lot of analysis by Department of Homeland Security agents as to who may become a public charge "in the future."

I feared this when the news first broke of the Trump rule, that it would go beyond disincentivizing immigrants from taking government handouts and be a method by which the immigrant-haters would find as a
way to toss immigrants out of the country. And that is how the rule is apparently structured.

The Wall Street Journal reports:
Start with DHS’s declaration that it will weigh the “totality of the alien’s circumstances” and that “no single factor alone, including the receipt of public benefits, is outcome determinative.” So immigration officers will apply the kind of holistic admission reviews that colleges now use—except adversity will be considered a negative...

Anyone who has been “approved to receive one or more public benefits for more than 12 months within any 36-month period” would receive an automatic negative strike. But most immigrants don’t qualify for most public benefits until they have lived in the country for at least five years. Thus DHS is directing immigration officers in the 837-page rule to project the likelihood that immigrants might someday become a “public charge” based on arbitrary levels of income, employment, education and English proficiency...

 The rule looks like one more attempt by White House adviser Stephen Miller to make America a country of no more immigrants.
Thus, I must pull my support for the rule. It appears more to be a Miller Immigrant Hating Wall than a Welfare Wall.

I have already discussed the fallacies on which Miller bases his immigration hate:



  1. I told you: it's a pre-crime/guilty-until-I-say-so test against legal immigrants.

  2. Americans by-and-large love their socialism, and created this system of socialized charity that undermines productivity and ambition and otherwise operates as a moral hazard on assumption of risk. And now they use their beloved system as a pretext to constraining freedom?
    Should the government likewise foist upon poor families, a Chinese-style, one-child-only policy that regulates the number of children people can have---ostensibly, because having more children will incentivize people to go on welfare, or commit crimes, or participate in the black market drug trade---?

  3. Large corporations love illegals because they can pay them peanuts and sic the taxpayers with the expense of providing housing, medical care, indoctrination ... I mean education for their children, and other goodies.

    1. Wait - who is providing "illegulz who scare me so much" with housing?

  4. There should be a wall between immigrants and welfare, of course, but this idea doesn't have to mean keeping immigrants out of the country. The disingenuous efforts of those who espouse for physical barriers or legal barriers against productive and driven individuals whose only sin is having a bit more melanin in their skin end up making the case against welfare benefits to immigrants much more difficult to defend since our ideological opponents on the left lumps us together with these whiny white supremacist losers.

  5. Perhaps Trump is thinking of deporting Melania? She does seem to fit the bill per the new restrictionist guidelines...

  6. The words "our country" contained in the oft-uttered phrase (to paraphrase) "America is OUR country, and immigrants can't just be allowed to come here to OUR country at-will...", is SOCIALIST in and of itself: This whole concept of a vast swath of territory (or any piece of land) being owned by everybody, is socialistic. These people who believe this is right and proper might as well start calling each other "comrade."