This proposed rule has everyone hot under the collar, but the current law states that “an alien is inadmissable if, at the time of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status, he or she is likely at any time to become a public charge.” It goes on to explain that DHS “seeks to better ensure that aliens subject to the public charge inadmissability ground are self-sufficient, i.e., do not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities, as well as the resources of family members, sponsors, and private organizations.” And before the Perpetually Outraged among us become more so, the exclusion under this provision would apply only to those who used welfare, etc. for more than twelve months during a three-year period.
We quoted extensively from the law and from the proposed rule to make the point that it has been the policy of the United States not to admit as immigrants anyone who will become a burden on the public purse (with exemptions for refugees and those seeking asylum). The changes proposed by the Administration are not inconsistent with the existing law – in fact, they express the government’s determination to enforce those provisions, which, we will point out, under the law should have been enforced all along. The previous two Administrations were especially lax, it seems, in enforcing the law, which has helped to lead us to the present immigration crisis. Given the reaction to the proposed change by the Democrats in Congress, the “public charge exclusion” will not be enforced at all by any of that party’s candidates for the presidential nomination. But then, why stop at free health care, Social Security, and college education – all of which have been promised for illegal aliens by at least some of the candidates.
Immigrants have always been expected to provide for themselves – come to think of it, native-born citizens were also. Somewhere along the line, welfare and food stamps transformed into a form of entitlements, as everyone has been encouraged to apply for whatever they could get. It would be foolish for any country to admit immigrants, illegal or otherwise (with exceptions for refugees or those seeking asylum) who were incapable of providing for themselves or who would be a burden on the taxpayers. This proposed change is a common sense enforcement of the current law, and will discourage dependency and will encourage initiative and work. The surprising thing about the proposed rule change is that it is controversial at all.