{"id":21807,"date":"2019-08-07T15:00:52","date_gmt":"2019-08-07T19:00:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=21807"},"modified":"2019-08-07T15:00:54","modified_gmt":"2019-08-07T19:00:54","slug":"public-charge-illegal-alien-welfare-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2019\/08\/07\/public-charge-illegal-alien-welfare-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"New Guidelines Aim to Ensure Immigrants Are Self-Sufficient"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Laws requiring that immigrants to the United States be self-sufficient have been on the books for nearly 140 years. The Immigration Act of 1882<\/a> barred any immigrant “unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge” from entering the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem is that the term \u201cpublic charge\u201d is not defined in\nthe immigration law. Prior to 1996, an immigrant visa applicant could overcome\nthe public charge provision if someone with sufficient economic resource would\nsponsor them by submitting an affidavit of support. By 1996, that had come to\nbe seen as virtually meaningless because there was no system of enforcement to\nmake the sponsor provide the promised economic assistance. Legislation in 1996\nattacked that loophole by specifying that the affidavit of support had to be\nlegally enforceable. But, still, no effective enforcement system has ever been\nimplemented. So, virtually no immigrants are ordered to leave because of\nwelfare use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then, at the urging of the mass immigration lobby, President Clinton issued an executive order in 1999 that specified that the term referred simply to immigrants who became \u2013 or would become \u2013 chronically dependent on welfare (specifically food stamps or other cash assistance). This narrowing of the term made it largely irrelevant. Now, an effort is underway to tighten up the public charge restriction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

An August 6 article in Politico<\/a> reports on how the number of visa denials based on the public charge provision of the law has increased in the Trump administration. In part, that is based on new State Department guidelines that downgraded an affidavit of support to just one of the factors to be considered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, the administration has in the works a new\nexecutive order defining what the public charge provision means \u2013 in effect\nbroadening the narrow definition specified by Clinton. The Politico article notes that the\nnew executive order reportedly will add use of Medicaid, public housing\nvouchers and subsidized prescription drugs as evidence that an immigrant has\nbecome deportable under the public charge provision. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It remains to be seen whether the new order will address\nenforcement of the provision. Will sponsors be held responsible for living up\nto their affidavits of support? Will government agencies that distribute public\nassistance funds police against their use by ineligible immigrants? Will that\nresponsibility be left to state and local governments?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Laws requiring that immigrants to the United States be self-sufficient have been on the books for nearly 140 years. The Immigration Act of 1882 barred any immigrant “unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge” from entering the United States. The problem is that the term \u201cpublic charge\u201d is not<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":13312,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[1478],"tags":[1524,5691,1909,1908],"yst_prominent_words":[6321,6322,6318,2881,1974,6319,1995,4421,6320,2736,1980,1963,3792,2817,1975,1971,6317,1993,5697,1933],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21807"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21807"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21807\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21808,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21807\/revisions\/21808"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13312"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21807"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21807"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21807"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=21807"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}