Author Topic: Public Charge: Curtailing the Immigrant Burden  (Read 275 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
Public Charge: Curtailing the Immigrant Burden
« on: February 17, 2017, 03:39:02 pm »
Public Charge: Curtailing the Immigrant Burden

Posted by Jack Martin | Feb 16, 2017 | Immigration Blog Posts, Trump Administration, welfare | 1 |
Public Charge: Curtailing the Immigrant Burden

The Trump administration has been making news by suggesting that enforcement of the immigration law’s public charge provision needs to be tighter enforced. The Washington Post reported on January 31, “The Trump administration is considering a plan to weed out would-be immigrants who are likely to require public assistance, as well as to deport — when possible — immigrants already living in the United States who depend on taxpayer help…”

It has long been a tenet of immigration law that would-be immigrants may not be admitted if they are likely to be a burden on the U.S. taxpayer. If immigrant visa applicants cannot demonstrate that they will be self-supporting, they are excludable. In more recent times, provisions were adopted that allowed a third party to sign an affidavit of support for the visa applicant in order to overcome the public charge assumption for someone without a job to go to and without substantial savings would become a public charge. The problem with that procedure was that it has a very generous test of what level of support is required – 25 percent above the poverty level. That is a level where many means-tested public assistance benefits are available. In addition, no means existed to hold the sponsor liable for the support that was promised.

http://immigrationreform.com/2017/02/16/public-charge-curtailing-the-immigrant-burden/
« Last Edit: February 17, 2017, 03:39:40 pm by rangerrebew »

Offline skeeter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,717
  • Gender: Male
Re: Public Charge: Curtailing the Immigrant Burden
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2017, 03:42:34 pm »
If this is the direction we are going (and I hope it is) then can we also agree to deny benefits to illegal aliens, outside of emergency medical care?