{"id":22113,"date":"2019-10-31T13:57:00","date_gmt":"2019-10-31T17:57:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=22113"},"modified":"2020-02-21T06:14:52","modified_gmt":"2020-02-21T11:14:52","slug":"public-charge-media-bias-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2019\/10\/31\/public-charge-media-bias-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Vox and the Washington Post: When the Truth Hurts, Change It!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Both the Washington Post<\/a><\/em> andVox<\/a><\/em> recently published articles attacking President Trump\u2019s new \u201cpublic charge<\/a>\u201d rule. The Post<\/em> implies that the Trump administration is engaging in an, \u201can egregious attempt to supercede [sic<\/em>] and overturn congressional will.\u201d Vox <\/em>makes the hyperbolic claim that \u201cTrump quietly cut legal immigration by up to 65%.\u201d In reality, neither of those claims is remotely true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s address the Post<\/em>\u2019s claims first: In 1996, Congress\nsaw, \u201ca compelling government interest to enact new rules for eligibility and\nsponsorship agreements in order to assure that aliens be self-reliant in\naccordance with national immigration policy.\u201d In order to meet that need, it\npassed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act\n(PRWORA), which reformed our welfare policies, and the Illegal Immigration\nReform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which reformed our immigration\nsystem. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those pieces of legislation\nconsisted mainly of measures intended to keep destitute foreigners from\narriving in the U.S. and expecting American taxpayers to foot the bill for\ntheir support. Congress barred both illegal aliens and recently-arrived legal\nimmigrants from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits. It also required\npetitioners sponsoring a prospective immigrant to assume financial\nresponsibility for that immigrant when he\/she arrives in the United States and\nto sign a legal document formally acknowledging that responsibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, in response to complaints\nfrom immigrant advocacy groups that the public charge rules were \u201cdraconian,\u201d\nthe Clinton administration unlawfully re-defined public charge, allowing both\nlegal and illegal aliens to collect most types of welfare, without fear of\npenalty. Subsequently, President Obama, also acting unlawfully, expanded the\nrange of benefits available to non-citizens, moving well beyond even the\nClinton-era guidelines. These were blatant attempts to make an end-run around\nCongress and thwart its will.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Trump administration has simply issued a new regulation requiring the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State to apply the 1996 public charge laws as they were written<\/a> by Congress. That\u2019s an obvious attempt to honor the will<\/a> of Congress and respect the Legislature\u2019s position in our model of constitutional federalism. But it is most emphatically not<\/em><\/strong> an egregious attempt to supersede and overturn congressional will. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What about the claims made by Vox<\/em>? To begin with, one can hardly characterize the Trump administration of doing anything \u201cquietly.\u201d And the implementation of the public charge rule<\/a> runs true to form. In October of 2018 Team Trump publicly proposed<\/a> the new rule, accompanied by the typical fanfare. In August of 2019, Acting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Ken Cuccinelli announced the final rule<\/a> at a press conference covered by all the major news outlets. Far from gently humming The Sounds of Silence<\/em> while implementing this rule, the Trump administration was actually screaming C\u2019mon Feel the Noise<\/em> into any available loudspeaker.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How much will this rule cut immigration to the United States? In reality, not much. The lines to get into our country are already lengthy. It is likely that, rather than reducing immigration, this rule will simply allow intending immigrants who are financially solvent to move to the head of the line. Vox<\/em> doesn\u2019t address this possibility because it doesn\u2019t fit the outlet\u2019s open borders ideology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, the real headline here is the fact that the Washington Post<\/em><\/a> and Vox<\/em><\/a> are spreading fake news. But that story is so old, it\u2019s hardly even newsworthy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Both the Washington Post andVox recently published articles attacking President Trump\u2019s new \u201cpublic charge\u201d rule. The Post implies that the Trump administration is engaging in an, \u201can egregious attempt to supercede [sic] and overturn congressional will.\u201d Vox makes the hyperbolic claim that \u201cTrump quietly cut legal immigration by up to 65%.\u201d In reality, neither of<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":52,"featured_media":22114,"comment_status":"closed","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":[7],"tags":[1524,545,275,1909],"yst_prominent_words":[2122,1974,2991,2056,6982,2008,1963,6983,2125,6981,1975,1971,2988,5387,1946,1991,1933,6984,2116,6980],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22113"}],"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\/52"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22113"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22113\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22116,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22113\/revisions\/22116"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22114"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22113"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22113"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22113"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=22113"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}