{"id":17618,"date":"2018-09-20T13:11:38","date_gmt":"2018-09-20T17:11:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/?p=17618"},"modified":"2018-12-28T09:52:07","modified_gmt":"2018-12-28T14:52:07","slug":"public-charge-completely-missing-the-point","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2018\/09\/20\/public-charge-completely-missing-the-point\/","title":{"rendered":"Public Charge: Completely Missing the Point"},"content":{"rendered":"

YubaNet.com<\/em> is an internet news platform serving the agricultural region in the northern reaches of the Sacramento Valley. Many of the agricultural businesses in the region are dependent on immigrant farm labor, both legal and illegal. So, it\u2019s no surprise that many of the region\u2019s residents skew toward the open-borders lobby.<\/p>\n

However, a recent article<\/a> on YubaNet.com<\/em> shows just how out-of-touch with reality the pro-alien lobby has become. Titled \u201cTrump \u2018public charge rule\u2019 to impose a financial test for immigrants that 40 percent of U.S. born would fail.\u201d The piece is, in essence, a re-hash of a press release announcing the publication of a study by the open-borders Migration Policy Institute.<\/p>\n

The argument is straightforward: a large number of native-born U.S. citizens would be considered \u201cpublic charges\u201d if they were immigrants. Therefore, the Trump administration\u2019s attempts to strengthen public charge rules<\/a> \u2013 the regulations that state newly arrived migrants should not become dependent on public support \u2013 are unfair and unreasonable.<\/p>\n

However, that argument is both totally irrelevant and utterly silly. Citizens of the United States aren\u2019t subject to public charge laws because our social safety net was designed to support them. It was not, however, designed to finance new lives in the United States for indigent immigrants who can\u2019t, or won\u2019t, find gainful employment in their new country of residence.<\/p>\n

Both the Migration Policy Institute and YubaNet.com<\/em> seem to miss that key point: different legal standards apply to folks who aren\u2019t U.S. citizens. But they\u2019re not missing anything. Drawing a false equivalency between those who possess full membership in our polity and those who do not is a common tactic employed by the open borders contingent, in order to imply that immigration enforcement<\/a> is inhumane.<\/p>\n

In reality, enforcing our immigration laws is far from callous or cold-hearted. Clearly established, carefully defended borders and consistently applied requirements for immigrating to the U.S. ensure that we, as a nation, are able to offer safety, security and economic opportunity for those willing and able to contribute to the success of the United States. And public charge laws are simply an acknowledgment that we expect those who would become Americans to be self-sufficient.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, a failure to enforce the public charge rules sets the United States up as an extended welfare plan<\/a> for every country that is failing to provide economic stability for its own citizens. And that is something that the United States can\u2019t afford to become. Allowing those who have not paid into our system to begin drawing benefits as soon as they arrive is a recipe for bankruptcy<\/a>.<\/p>\n

So, 40 percent of native-born U.S. citizens may, as MPI claims qualify as public charges. But, so what? The U.S. government has an obligation to assist its own citizens, should they fall on hard times. It does not, however, have any duty to spend billions of American tax dollars subsidizing the American dream for recently arrived foreigners.