Skip to comments.Free of Charge: For Bill de Blasio, newcomers to the U.S. have no obligations.
Posted on 11/03/2019 11:21:31 AM PST by karpov
Earlier this year, the Trump administration announced that it would expand the list of government benefits it considers when defining a person as a public charge. Under the new terms, an immigrant receiving, say, food stamps, emergency cash assistance, or living in public housing may see those benefits count against him when he seeks to upgrade or extend his visa status or apply for citizenship.
It was long believed that immigrants to the United States should not impose social burdens and should thus secure local sponsors who could guarantee their expenses until they got settled. The Immigration Act of 1891, for example, excluded from entry insane persons, paupers or persons likely to become a public charge, persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease, and other undesirable categories, including felons and polygamists.
Progressive localities have responded furiously to Trumps directive. New York City and State have joined a lawsuit to prevent the expansion of public-charge criteria, alleging that it reflects animus against nonwhite immigrants. The ultimate city of immigrants will never stop fighting President Trumps xenophobic policies, declared New York City mayor Bill de Blasio. New York attorney general Letitia James called the rule change a clear violation of our laws and our values that would make more children go hungry, though aid to children was excluded from consideration in the new rule.
A Federal judge in Manhattan issued a nationwide injunction earlier this month, blocking the new rules from going into effect. Judge George B. Daniels said the Trump administration was perverting the intent of the law, and that the rule is repugnant to the American Dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility.
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...
[[It was long believed that immigrants to the United States should not impose social burdens]]
HA!- illegals are costing this country between $400 BILLION DOLLARS and $600 BILLION DOLLARS (and this estimate was from a decade or more ago) PER YEAR when all the costs, both direct and indirect, are added together- and indirect cause would be say an illegal injured a citizen, gets put in prison- taxpayers pay for the incarceration, (This is direct cost) but the indirect costs would be the injured citizen loses job, insurance goes up, has to hire attorney etc
Several studies were done to estimate the costs- and they were a staggering $600 BILLION DOLLARS Every single year- even back then- probably close to, or even over 1 TRILLION DOLLARS per year now
the wall costs what? a one time fee of $25 BILLION DOLLARS, with annual fee of say $100 million or so? Build the Wall! We will save many hundreds of billions of dollars every single year provided we kick all the deadbeats who came here just for gov handouts out as well
Nearly 70% of actual ‘immigrants’, and illegals, are on some kind of government welfare program- they are draining our economy- it’s a lie that illegals make us money- they do not- they cost us hundreds of billions of dollars a year!
Can we please incorporate into the new rules a requirement that all city, state, and federal democrat politicians and their democrat family members be required to house, feed, and care for said ‘immigrants’ for a period of not less than one year or until the ‘immigrants’ are financially independent?
That can’t possibly be right. Lieawatha says that, if we open the doors and bring in a billion no-work and minimum wage immigrants, their tax payments will cover Medicare for All.
Why are federal DISTRICT judges still allowed to do this? Do they no longer adhere to SCOTUS? Have they gone rogue? Does anyone on SCOTUS care? Is America under the control of a Judicial Oligarchy (well... YES!)?
They have an unwritten obligation to vote Democrat.
If that happened, theyd turn right around and make conservatives sole provider of the defense department. Liberals would love to stop paying that 700 billion and say so often.
Only in the tiny, corrupted minds of liberal know-nothings who want to force others to do the charity they never practice themselves.
[[Why are federal DISTRICT judges still allowed to do this?]]
Good question, another good question is why has no republican said “Hey wait a minute- they are exceeding their limits”?
And, of course he and the rest of the Democrats would feel exactly the same way, and hold exactly the same positions if these groups were likely to vote Republican.
However, if Trump was to ignore the ruling outside Clinton Democrat appointee George B. Daniels' jurisdiction [the Southern District of New York], the Democrats, the Media and some "Republicans" would scream IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE!!!
They've been trying to do this since Trump became President.
This is where "judge" Daniels' injunction holds sway, and nowhere else in this country:
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (in case citations, S.D.N.Y.) is a federal district court whose geographic jurisdiction encompasses the counties of New York (Manhattan), Bronx, Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Orange, Dutchess, and Sullivan in the state of New York.
NOT anywhere else in the country.
See my post 12.
Pass a Law saying Judges can only advise and not overturn Lawmakers but a Judge will overturn it ,LOL
So America is under the iron fist of a (Leftist) judicial oligarchy? Time for a new Revolution...
The Constitutional remedy is impeachment. A Congress that cared about guarding its prerogative to make law would impeach every one of these jokers instantly the moment they issued such rulings.
That's all you need to know. All Carter, Clinton, and Obama appointed judges are lawless. They will automatically rule against President Trump. Just like the Liberal Media, these judges are extensions of the DNC.
All those billions of dollars to finance more voters for Dems to totally take over the electoral college vote in TX, FL and elsewhere. Good bye America if we don’t stop it now.
Do those roughly 50% of voters who will vote against Trump in 2020 really want to pay all that money?
And to face all that crime?
To have their guns taken away by agents at their front door some evening? Or worse?
To go to jail for refusing to let their child have a sex change after a school employee tells them to do it?
To have loss of freedom of speech because someone calls it “hate speech” to disagree with them?
To lose Medicare (”Medicare for All” actually means total loss of Medicare and private insurance even if citizens paid for it from their paychecks for decades to support Medicare-—Mark Levin said).
To pay deductions for reparations for blacks who had no relatives ever in the African slave trade? Or to Oprah,LeBron James and Rhianna and Beyonce?
Do they know all this? Or simply hate Trump?
Shouldn’t GOP advertisements tell them all of the above? It’s not just “Trump brought jobs”. The hypocrites used “It’s the economy, stupid” but now the economy means nothing to them.
Desperate Democrats are again trying to rewrite history imo.
To begin with, let's consider federal government support for non-citizens to be foreign aid, regardless if such people are residing on US soil. The problem with foreign aid in that context is that Justice Joseph Story had warned that Congress cannot used the General Welfare Clause as an excuse to justify foreign aid.
If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added]. Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2
Next, Justice Joseph Story had also indicated that the Constitution's provision to return fugitives to the state where they allegedly committed a crime for trial, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2, was inspired by international law, ultimately a security precaution in stark contrast to Democrats now arguing for open borders for undocumented Democrats.
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime [emphasis added]."
"It has been often made a question, how far any nation is, by the law of nations, and independent of any treaty stipulations, bound to surrender upon demand fugitives from justice, who, having committed crimes in another country, have fled thither for shelter. Mr. Chancellor Kent considers it clear upon principle, as well as authority, that every state is bound to deny an asylum to criminals, and, upon application and due examination of the case, to surrender the fugitive to the foreign state, where the crime has been committed. Other distinguished judges and jurists have entertained a different opinion. It is not uncommon for treaties to contain mutual stipulations for the surrender of criminals; and the United States have sometimes been a party to such an arrangement [emphasis added].
But, however the point may be, as to foreign nations, it cannot be questioned, that it is of vital importance to the public administration of criminal justice, and the security of the respective states, that criminals, who have committed crimes therein, should not find an asylum in other states; but should be surrendered up for trial and punishment [emphasis added]. It is a power most salutary in its general operation, by discouraging crimes, and cutting off the chances of escape from punishment. It will promote harmony and good feelings among the states; and it will increase the general sense of the blessings of the national government. It will, moreover, give strength to a great moral duty, which neighbouring states especially owe to each other, by elevating the policy of the mutual suppression of crimes into a legal obligation. Hitherto it has proved as useful in practice, as it is unexceptionable in its character." Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 18023, 1833.
The post-civil war congressional record expands the issue of state security to the national level where non-citizens are concerned.
More specifically, Congress had condemned renegade states that wrongly give non-citizens the power to vote. It was appropriately argued imo that giving non-citizens the power to vote effectively nullified the "uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause" (1.8.4), weakening the Union.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
" If the States can admit to the elective franchise those who are not citizens, thereby neutralizing the votes of citizens, not only the Federal power of naturalization becomes a nullity, but * * * * "a minority of citizens by the aid of aliens may control the government of the States, and through the States the government of the Union [emphasis added]." Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See near middle of 1st column.)
" Whatever difference there may be as to what other right appertain to a citizen, all must agree that he has the right to petition and also to claim the Protection of the Government. These belong to him as a member the body politic, and the possession of them is what separates citizens of the lowest condition from aliens and slaves. To suppose that a State can make an alien a citizen or confer on him the right of voting would involve the absurdity of giving him the direct and immediate control of the action of the General Government [emphasis added], from which he can claim no protection and to which he has no right to present a petition." Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 1868. (See bottom half of 1st column.)
Corrections, insights welcome.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.