President Trump is reportedly toying with deporting immigrants on public assistance

[mystery-ak]

President Trump is reportedly toying with deporting immigrants on public assistance
3:32 p.m. ET
 

Per draft executive orders obtained by The Washington Post, President Trump's administration may be looking to roll out more restrictions on immigrants planning to enter the U.S., as well as those already in the country:

    The administration would be seeking to "deny admission to any alien who is likely to become a public charge" and develop standards for “determining” whether an immigrant can be deported after five years if that person receives a certain amount of public assistance, including Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Medicaid.

    The second order, titled "Executive Order on Protecting American Jobs and Workers by Strengthening the Integrity of Foreign Worker Visa Programs" calls for "eliminating" the "jobs magnet" that is driving illegal immigration to the United States, according to a copy obtained by The Post. The order would rescind any work visa provisions for foreign nationals found not to be in "the national interest" or in violation of U.S. immigration laws. [The Washington Post]


more
http://theweek.com/speedreads/677236/president-trump-reportedly-toying-deporting-immigrants-public-assistance

[geronl]

How about cutting off welfare to non-citizens?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Unless I overlooked it, I did not see the word illegal alien in this.

Would this apply for All aliens, legally and illegally here or just illegals I wonder.

[montanajoe]

 

Another idiot idea..

Currently to enter the country an immigrant needs a sponsor making at least 125% of Federal Poverty Guidelines for the sponsor, the sponsor's dependents plus the immigrants. If the immigrant becomes a public charge the sponsor agrees to be responsible for 10 years after the immigrants admission. If they want to raise the threshold to 150%, 200% or more most would not have a problem. But the idea of singling out legally admitted immigrants and changing the rules 5 years after they have been here won't fly and will just feed the opposition to more important priorities...like a Supreme Court Justice

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Another idiot idea..

Currently to enter the country an immigrant needs a sponsor making at least 125% of Federal Poverty Guidelines for the sponsor, the sponsor's dependents plus the immigrants. If the immigrant becomes a public charge the sponsor agrees to be responsible for 10 years after the immigrants admission. If they want to raise the threshold to 150%, 200% or more most would not have a problem. But the idea of singling out legally admitted immigrants and changing the rules 5 years after they have been here won't fly and will just feed the opposition to more important priorities...like a Supreme Court Justice

Wrong - most immigrants enter this country ILLEGALLY.  You need to pat yourself

[montanajoe]

Wrong - most immigrants enter this country ILLEGALLY.  You need to pat yourself

Total Bullsh*t

[TomSea]

I don't know myself, I heard one pundit say if a wall is built, they will come up the California coast.

Also saw an article which I can find now, as a general comment, the writer said the old "Yanqui go home" mentality could come back... but, Mexico, Honduras, Panama, a lot of Latin America is in crisis now, high crime. Argentina is making it's immigration laws harder and deporting people.



Back in the day, Nixon went to Latin America and had a rough time.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/nixon.htm

He had a tough time in Caracas, Venezuela but was welcomed in Bogota, Colombia.

[TomSea]

Just reading the debate above, don't they say now, most illegals overstay their visas.

[thackney]

Wrong - most immigrants enter this country ILLEGALLY.  You need to pat yourself

False.

U.S. immigrant population = more than 42.4 million

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states#Unauthorized Immigrants

What source do you claim showing the majority illegal?