It’s about fucking time.
Conservatives have been trying for decades to create an immigration system that rewards immigrants who won’t be a burden on society and discourages those who will.
The Trump administration this week began enforcing the “public charge” rule, giving U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services the authority to refuse green cards — the key step on the path to citizenship — to people who have used a wide range of nonemergency welfare programs.
“The main reason this got done is because we have a president who is determined enough to make self-sufficiency matter again in a meaningful way,” said Ken Cuccinelli, who pushed through the rule as acting chief of USCIS and is now acting deputy secretary at the Department of Homeland Security. “That kind of entrepreneurial mentality is a natural for him.”
Like most of President Trump’s other immigration moves, this one has survived an onslaught of court challenges, howls of complaints from Democrats on Capitol Hill and fierce opposition of immigration rights groups, who called it racist and elitist.
The administration said the vision of self-sufficient immigrants has been part of the American vision since Colonial times and was explicitly written into law in 1882, when Congress banned any immigrant who was “unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.”
The idea was reaffirmed as recently as 1996, when President Clinton signed legislation giving officers explicit powers to deny visas to potential public charges.
Yet the Clinton administration issued guidance that took much of the teeth out of the law, saying only a few cash-benefit programs such as welfare checks would be considered.
Critics said that left immigrants free to collect food stamps, Medicaid and other “noncash” benefits and had long pressed for action.
The Trump rules expand the calculation to include noncash programs such as food stamps, housing assistance and Medicaid. Anyone who used those benefits for at least 12 months out of a three-year period would be flagged.
It’s not an automatic disqualifier, but it will be “an important factor, heavily weighted to the negative” when USCIS officers decide whether to grant a green card, Mr. Cuccinelli said.
The State Department said it will begin following the same rules for those applying for entry from outside the U.S.
Homeland Security won’t guess how many people may be denied under the rule, though Mr. Cuccinelli said the bigger change will be in immigrants’ behavior.
He predicted some rejections in the short term as people apply after taking welfare. Over the long run, he said, they will adjust their behavior and decline to take benefits if it isn’t absolutely necessary, “which is actually a useful measure, at the margin, of who’s able to be self-sufficient.”
“The goal is to make sure that people who are granted long-term status, legal permanent residence status, can stand on their own two feet. And get back to that American tradition that has been in law for over 140 years,” Mr. Cuccinelli said.
The rules don’t apply to refugees, asylum-seekers and those in the U.S. on special victim visas.
Applications filed before Monday will be judged under the old rules.
Critics of the new policy include immigrant rights groups and the American Psychological Association, which weighed in last month with a statement declaring that the change will “negatively affect the physical and mental health of those immigrants who are most in need.”
“It would effectively bar many of them from life-sustaining and potentially life-saving programs under the threat of losing a path to citizenship and potential deportation, leading to more immigrant family separations,” said Sandra L. Shullman, president of the APA.
“Those guys are crazy,” said Mr. Cuccinelli, adding that it’s not incumbent on the government to make sure nobody faces stressful choices.
“How can you complain that life has decisions to make?” he said. “Guess what? Life has decisions to make.”
The SCOTUS is backing the laws:
States have the authority to prosecute illegal aliens for using stolen identities of American citizens to work illegally in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.
In a 5-4 decision — with liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissenting — the Supreme Court ruled against three illegal aliens who were prosecuted for stealing the identities of American citizens to work illegally in the state of Kansas.
Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch wrote in their majority opinion that states do have the authority to prosecute individuals for crimes that overlap with federal law.
The Justices wrote:
“The mere fact that state laws like the Kansas provisions at issue overlap to some degree with federal criminal provisions does not even begin to make a case for conflict preemption. From the beginning of our country, criminal law enforcement has been primarily a responsibility of the States, and that remains true today. In recent times, the reach of federal criminal law has expanded, and there are now many instances in which a prosecution for a particular course of conduct could be brought by either federal or state prosecutors. Our federal system would be turned upside down if we were to hold that federal criminal law preempts state law whenever they overlap, and there is no basis for inferring that federal criminal statutes preempt state laws whenever they overlap. Indeed, in the vast majority of cases where federal and state laws overlap, allowing the States to prosecute is entirely consistent with federal interests. [Emphasis added]”
The ruling overturns a Kansas Supreme Court decision where justices claimed that because state and federal law overlap on the issue of federal immigration law and identity theft, states do not have the authority to prosecute such cases.
At hand were the prosecutions of three illegal aliens — Ramiro Garcia, Donaldo Morales, and Guadalupe Ochoa-Lara — who stole the identities of American citizens by taking their Social Security Numbers in order to illegally work in the state of Kansas against federal law.
A 2018 investigation by the Immigration and Reform Law Institute (IRLI) discovered that there have been potentially 39 million cases between 2012 to 2016 wherein American citizens have had their identities stolen by illegal aliens.
The discovery was made after IRLI investigators reviewed W-2 tax forms where names on the financial records did not match their corresponding Social Security records.
As an added bonus, President Trump has launched a task force to strip citizenship from foreign-born terrorists and criminals:
The Trump administration is establishing a new section within the Justice Department to deal with the process of removing citizenship from foreign-born individuals who fraudulently obtained citizenship by failing to disclose past convictions for serious crimes — including terrorism and war crimes.
The section, which will be within the DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation, will be dedicated to denaturalizing those who had failed to disclose they had been involved in criminal activity on their N-400 form for naturalization. It requires the government to show that citizenship was obtained illegally or “procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.”
……“When a terrorist or sex offender becomes a U.S. citizen under false pretenses, it is an affront to our system — and it is especially offensive to those who fall victim to these criminals,” Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt said. “The new Denaturalization Section will further the Department’s efforts to pursue those who unlawfully obtained citizenship status and ensure that they are held accountable for their fraudulent conduct.”
The department has seen an increase in such cases both because of an increased effort by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to root out fraud, as well as Operation Janus — an operation which began during the Obama administration and that identified hundreds of thousands of cases where paper fingerprint data was not entered into the centralized fingerprint database.
Officials have pointed to recent cases whereby the DOJ has secured the denaturalization of terrorists, war criminals and sex offenders. They include:
An individual convicted of terrorism in Egypt who admitted recruiting for Al Qaeda in the U.S. He was denaturalized while in Egypt and had his passport taken away from him.
An individual who received military training in an Afghan jihadist camp and coordinated with 9/11 mastermind Usama Bin Laden. He “self-deported” to Somaliland.
An individual who was convicted in Bosnia of executing eight unarmed civilians and prisoners of war during the Balkans conflict. He was denaturalized while serving a sentence in Bosnia.
One individual who engaged in sexual contact with a 7-year-old family member and another who sexually abused a minor for multiple years.
Of course, liberal shitbags see nothing wrong with identity theft by illegals or allowing them to siphon benefits off the American taxpayer.
The Dems were all for enforcing the immigration laws until they became political tools.
The U.S. has the right to control who enters the country. There is no Constitutional or legal right for a foreigner to enter the U.S. It’s a privilege. Every country has immigration laws, travel laws, and borders.
I like how Dwight Eisenhower handled the illegal alien problem; a military-directed operation with a no-nonsense approach to kicking out and keeping out illegal aliens. Round them up, send them home.
Enforce the law
Establish a vetting process for all foreign immigrants
Build the wall